Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

[O.F.F.]

"Men of the Apron" (Wayne and G3),

Let me remind you, that this thread is about the incompatibility of Freemasonry vs. Biblical Christianity; NOT whether or not Masons can post in "Christian Only" forums.

You can spin

what you think the rules say about Freemasonry, but the Administrator of this website has made it perfectly clear:

After research into this topic many years ago, I've concluded that Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity. (emphasis added)

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23730034&postcount=14

 

[JamesJD]

Years ago, when I posted here, I stood alone aginst freemasonry, and my threads got deleted about it. Glad to see you here.

They're obviously not paid to acknowledge what's in the Bible applies to them. They're so sworn to secrecy that Wayne can't even post the wording of his 3rd° Blue Lodge oath. What then does the 33rd° hide, that Wayne has no idea of?

Only deception needs secrecy. Their white-washings, denials, pretending that none are masons unless we can prove it by masonic records, which are secret, is evasion. Every person associated with freemasonry in the past, present is relevant, as are all aspects and offshoot orgs, like the son of freemasonry twin of freemasonry P2 lodge.
It's fair to post testimony of one who risks his life to expose P2 lodge http://www.illuminaticonfessions.webfriend.it/
It's fair to bring up the book of Captain Morgan, for which he was abducted, never to be found, after breaking his oaths.
The overall secrecy (enforced) makes ANY scrap of evidence vital to investigating masonry.

Ordained ministers are bound by the IRS tax exempt agreement, which forbids opposing the gov "pubic policy" (501c3). They serve mammon, masonic or not. I oppose the gov policies on ignoring Geneva conventions, and using depleted uranium munitions in civilian areas, illegally invading and seizing the oil, while up to a million civilians are dead who had nothing to do with 9/11. Lots of blood is on the hands of those who ignore such evil for tax exempt status. 1 John 2:18-19, & John 16:2-3, & Ezekiel 9:3-9.

Since man of the apron Wayne has again denied the conditions of 501(c)(3) include political loyalty, which I know, having applied my self before; http://form1023help.com/_wsn/page2.html and here's a summary quote: "501(c)(3) organizations MUST fulfill the following responsibilities: SHUN POLITICAL ACTIVITY, limit legislative activity and generate public support".
"SHUN POLITICAL ACTIVITY" includes protests against gov policies, opposing candidates on moral grounds, activism for REFORM of corrupt gov.
"Limit legislative activity" means don't run for office unless you're a freemason approved candidate like Jesse Jackson, by my interpretation.
"Generate public support" means the church must be a popularity contest, mammon driven, not controversial in views, without issues to address. Why such a rule when the church is tax exempt? CONTROL of AGENDA of the churches.

Like I said, the IRS SIGNED agreement serves gov atrocities and corruption, gagging preachers UNCONSTITUTIONALLY from opposing gov "public policy". They all serve mammon; and look at Wayne, without comments on gov evils and atrocities and cancelling rights.
1 John 2:18-19, John 16:2-3, Ezekiel 9:3-9. Wayne flunks the test of Ezekiel 9:3-9, along with freemason/jesuit/illuminati rulership.
Wayne told an untruth about tax exempt requirements; a man of the apron is right.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Let me remind you, that this thread is about the incompatibility of Freemasonry vs. Biblical Christianity; NOT whether or not Masons can post in "Christian Only" forums.
You can spin what you think the rules say about Freemasonry, but the Administrator of this website has made it perfectly clear:

At the link you posted, the first statement is:

After research into this topic many years ago, I've concluded that Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity. (emphasis added)

You and I simply see different points of emphasis in what was said. So we have your opinion, and now we have his. That makes two opinions. And we also have your spin of what I said. And Erwin's is the one that counts on this forum, naturally, just as you would have it your way on your forum, I would have it my way on mine, ad infinitum.

But it still remains, that Erwin apparently does not believe, as do you, that membership in Freemasonry thus disqualifies one from being a Christian, because Masons who profess belief in the Nicene Creed are considered Christians and allowed to post in the "Christians Only" sections of the forum. I post there occasionally, and in accord with the wishes expressed in the forum rules, when I see Freemasonry threads there, I do not get into discussions of Freemasonry there (although I have on at least one occasion posted a point of clarification concerning factual information).

So since that section is "Christians ONLY," then we have to conclude it means that ONLY Christians may post there.

So apparently by "incompatibility" with Christianity, Erwin does not agree with your own ideas of incompatibility. And unless he has elaborated further upon the point to elucidate for us the differences between his own views of Masonry's incompatibility with Christianity, and your views of said incompatibility, you have no right to interpret his meaning for him or for the members of this forum. My own guess would be, that perhaps the difference would be, that he does not view Masonry as a religion, as you do.

We've known for some time that your own views of the "incompatibility" of Freemasonry with Christianity is something similar to cloning; but we do not have the input to determine exactly what Erwin's might be. But George's point about this being CHRISTIAN theology is one good indication that you cannot claim Erwin is in general agreement with your position; and I would suggest that his apparent estimation that Masons may also be Christians is another indication of the same.

 

[AndrewCS]

Hi Rev,

I have no doubt you have seen the simple question I have asked you and repeated.

Is there some reason you chose to ignore this?

Can you please answer this.

God Bless

 

[Rev Wayne]

Since man of the apron Wayne has again denied the conditions of 501(c)(3) include political loyalty, which I know, having applied my self before; http://form1023help.com/_wsn/page2.html and here's a summary quote: "501(c)(3) organizations MUST fulfill the following responsibilities: SHUN POLITICAL ACTIVITY, limit legislative activity and generate public support".
"SHUN POLITICAL ACTIVITY" includes protests against gov policies, opposing candidates on moral grounds, activism for REFORM of corrupt gov.
"Limit legislative activity" means don't run for office unless you're a freemason approved candidate like Jesse Jackson, by my interpretation.
"Generate public support" means the church must be a popularity contest, mammon driven, not controversial in views, without issues to address. Why such a rule when the church is tax exempt? CONTROL of AGENDA of the churches.

Like I said, the IRS SIGNED agreement serves gov atrocities and corruption, gagging preachers UNCONSTITUTIONALLY from opposing gov "public policy". They all serve mammon; and look at Wayne, without comments on gov evils and atrocities and cancelling rights.
1 John 2:18-19, John 16:2-3, Ezekiel 9:3-9. Wayne flunks the test of Ezekiel 9:3-9, along with freemason/jesuit/illuminati rulership.
Wayne told an untruth about tax exempt requirements; a man of the apron is right.

I still don't understand how or why an individual would be applying for an organizational exemption for himself, which appears to be what you are claiming. The first line on the form, after all, says:

Full name of organization (exactly as it appears in your organizing document)

Still the shape-shifter, I see? What you said earlier, and what you just posted by way of evidence are two completely different animals. You said, and I quoted directly:

Ordained ministers are bound by the IRS tax exempt agreement, which forbids opposing the gov "pubic policy" (501c3).

I still submit that you will find nothing of the sort in that document. There is nothing in there even mentioned about any expectations at all. It is simply a request for the applicant to provide answers to various questions concerning the nature of the organization making the application.

And as I pointed out before, it is disingenuous of you to address this on a Masonry thread where there are members of antimasonic organizations posting who have made the same applications for their own organizations, as ALL non-profit organizations must do if they wish to maintain a tax-exempt status.

But I would say your current link only serves to show your deception on this matter even further. The link you provided, after all, is not a link to the 1023 form itself, but is a link instead to a website maintained by a lawyer as an aid to those who are making such applications. So what we have is really not the form, but someone else’s interpretation of the form, and accompanying the link, we have your own interpretation of someone else’s interpretation.

And the fact is, all three—the form, the link, and your comments—are different.

The form itself may be found at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf.

You claimed:

"SHUN POLITICAL ACTIVITY" includes protests against gov policies, opposing candidates on moral grounds, activism for REFORM of corrupt gov.

I as an individual am not limited at all, as you claim. Any organization applying for this status would be, though. But all you got from the link you posted was “shun political activity.” The rest is only your interpretation of it. Nowhere on that page does that lawyer define this as you have.

And all it says on the form is:

Do you support or oppose candidates in political campaignsin any way? If “Yes,” explain.

And that’s it, the sum total of what the form says about “political activity.”

You also claimed:

"Limit legislative activity" means don't run for office unless you're a freemason approved candidate like Jesse Jackson, by my interpretation.

Well, at least you were honest enough to add “by my interpretation.” But the form says:

Do you attempt to influence legislation? If “Yes,” explain how you attempt to influence legislation and complete line 2b. If “No,” go to line 3a

Have you made or are you making an electionto have your legislative activities measured by expenditures by filing Form 5768? If “Yes,” attach a copy of the Form 5768 that was already filed or attach a completed Form 5768 that you are filing with this application. If “No,” describe whether your attempts to influence legislation are a substantial part of your activities. Include the time and money
spent on your attempts to influence legislation as compared to your total activities.

And that’s it. It has nothing to do with any individual in the organization in relation to running for office. It has everything to do with the organization being involved in political processes that might be contrary to their desired tax-exempt status.

You also said:

"Generate public support" means the church must be a popularity contest, mammon driven, not controversial in views, without issues to address.

God only knows where you got all this from a simple requirement that their support has to come from the public, rather than from private sources. It has nothing to do with “controversial views” or “issues to address,” it simply means contributions must come from publicly acknowledged sources and not from anonymous individuals or organizations. In fact, in direct contrast to your suggestion of being “mammon driven,” it is a requirement designed to PREVENT exactly that and KEEP it from being “mammon driven.”

On this point, the form is very clear, and is, of course, a bit more detailed on this matter, which goes to the heart of being “non-profit.” It stands to reason that the money trail will receive more scrutiny, since the question of financial status is the primary issue:

Attach a list showing the name and amount contributed by each person, company, or organization whose gifts totaled more than the 2% amount. If the answer is “None,” check this box.

For each year amounts are included on lines 1, 2, and 9 of Part IX-A. Statement of Revenues and Expenses, attach a list showing the name of and amount received from each disqualified person. If the answer is “None,” check this box.

For each year amounts are included on line 9 of Part IX-A. Statement of Revenues and Expenses, attach a list showing the name of and amount received from each payer, other than a disqualified person, whose payments were more than the larger of (1) 1% of line 10, Part IX-A. Statement of Revenues and Expenses, or (2) $5,000. If the answer is “None,” check this box.

Did you receive any unusual grants during any of the years shown on Part IX-A. Statement of Revenues and Expenses? If “Yes,” attach a list including the name of the contributor, the date and amount of the grant, a brief description of the grant, and explain why it is unusual.

Like I said, the IRS SIGNED agreement serves gov atrocities and corruption, gagging preachers UNCONSTITUTIONALLY from opposing gov "public policy". They all serve mammon; and look at Wayne, without comments on gov evils and atrocities and cancelling rights.

All I see is a sadly mistaken individual claiming things without support. I've had no "cancelled rights" and no restrictions on opposing government "public policy." I have seen instances in my own denomination of pastors running for public office. If what you claimed were true, they could not do so, or would be forced to give up something that is not theirs personally to begin with, namely, the tax-exempt status of their church. You have not shown any support in the least for your claim by the link you have posted.

 

[JamesJD]

"G" Wayne; the form I was sent in 1985 was VAGUE as to the meaning of shunning political activity, leaving it legally open to the interptretation of the IRS enforcers. Just one sentence at the end of the form on it, before the signature required.

Why would a lawyer advise on a website that churches MUST SHUN POLITICAL ACTIVITY, if it's false? I had no lawyer explaining the other requirements to me, but VAGUE is the wording of such requirements, on the forms; & I was guessing about the meaning of legislative activity and generating public support, (so the churches won't lose credibility by being sponsored by corporatons, while agreeing to be politically neutered unconstitutionally).
"MUST SHUN POLITICAL ACTIVITY" includes all types of activity, protests, reform actvism, opposing candidates on religious grounds (like Bush's memberships with illuminatis' Skull & Bones Order of Death, and Bohemian Grove, while he pretends to be Christian, suckering votes from the gullibles.
I'm sure the lawyer at http://form1023help.com/_wsn/page2.html has reason to post such a MUST for churches, as requirement. webtv cannot acces the form you posted, so, somebody check the latter part of it. Though that exact wording may be changed since 1985, I recall my inner conflict on that point. IRS refused me tax exempt status, thus interfering with the establishment of a religion, violating Amendment 1.

I theorize that Wayne is deliberately long winded and nitpicking in order to bury posts on other pages so that people not following the thread will miss the info. http://www.illuminaticonfessions.webfriend.it/
(Former member of the Masonic Executive Committee of Monte Carlo, & 33rd° P2, breaking his oaths out of contempt for the New World Order (Novus Ordo Secular) depopulation plans, disguised as war.

Edgar Allen Poe story, "Casque of ..." A freemason and Christian are bricklaying together, and the Christian seals the freemason behind the wall. The freemason pleaded saying "For the love of God, no!" And the Christian replies; "yes mason, for the love of God", and he puts the last brick in place to seal the freemasons' fate. Apparently, freemasons sealed the fate of Edgar Allen Poe; they put a rose and cognac at the grave of Poe every year.

That's public opinion of freemasonry in the 1800s, after Captain William Morgan was abducted for publishing a book exposing freemasonry, which led to an "Antimasonic Convention" olitical party. Wayne mocks at the shortlived nature of it, but foul play attrition may be the cause it was short lived. Poe certainly considered freemasonry an abomination to God.

 

[Rev Wayne]

the form I was sent in 1985 was VAGUE as to the meaning of shunning political activity, leaving it legally open to the interptretation of the IRS enforcers. Just one sentence at the end of the form on it, before the signature required

Thank you for helping me narrow this down. There was a well-known and documented case involving a 30-year feud between the IRS and Scientology, which centers, "coincidentally," on statements made on a 1985 application for tax-exempt status. There was extensive legal wrangling over the case concerning the issue of "public policy," which is a separate issue entirely from "public support." But in a report on the case, this statement was made:

Section 501(c)(3), however, contains no express condition that an organization must operate in conformance with public policy to qualify for tax exemption. Whether or not an organization violates public policy is relevant to exemption only in the context of whether the organization is operated exclusively for one of the exempt purposes that section 501(c)(3) enumerates.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/irs1023.html

Just for the record, then, the thing you are claiming is not inherent within the IRS requirement where you claim it is.

webtv cannot acces the form you posted

Then try the HTML of the same site:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...23.pdf+IRS+form+1023&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

I theorize that Wayne is deliberately long winded and nitpicking in order to bury posts on other pages so that people not following the thread will miss the info.

I take it you don't bother to read the material on the pages prior to the current page, when you post? I mean, that's about the only way to take a comment about "missing the info" on a forum where ALL pages are available at anyone's fingertips. With that flawed understanding, it's also easy to see why you keep re-posting the same material, even after it has been long-refuted: apparently you don't actually READ the refutations, since you relegate it to the corner of your mind with a categorization of "long-winded nitpicking," and therefore you justify the continual non-arguments.
There is nothing long-winded about being thorough and covering all points. You may call it nitpicking if you will, but there's little else I or anyone else can do when all we are ever presented is a pile of nits. And contrary to what you imply about long posts, the length of my posts or anyone else's has absolutely nothing to do with how quickly the pages change here. Check any thread in any place on the forum and you will find they all operate on a pattern of 10 posts to a page.

Back to the issue:

I theorize that you are digging up stuff you find elsewhere and cross-referencing it to me and to Freemasonry, for what intent is anyone's guess (my guess would be, an intentional sidetrack). I theorize also that you don't know beans about it, because you are essentially claiming to be a tax-exempt organization and are claiming that you applied for the organizational tax-exempt status for yourself.

Form 1023 IS, after all, the form that must be filled out by a non-profit ORGANIZATION. In fact, you pretty much admitted it:

IRS refused me tax exempt status, thus interfering with the establishment of a religion, violating Amendment 1.

They refused YOU the status, THUS interfering with a RELIGION.

Never mind the question of whether Freemasonry is a religion, I have a better one: are YOU a religion?

 

[George the 3rd]

Hi everyone. When I was a Fundamentalist, everyone told me that Freemasonry and Christianity are incompatible. However, I now hear people saying that they are compatible. Could someone please explain this to me? I'm really confused!

Mike,
Let me remind you, that this thread is about the incompatibility of Freemasonry and Christianity; NOT the incompatibility of Freemasonry vs.Biblical Christianity.

Please note that the original poster stated:

When I was a Fundamentalist

clearly implying that she may not believe EXACTLY like you do.

 

[George the 3rd]

Edgar Allen Poe story, "Casque of ..." A freemason and Christian are bricklaying together, and the Christian seals the freemason behind the wall. The freemason pleaded saying "For the love of God, no!" And the Christian replies; "yes mason, for the love of God", and he puts the last brick in place to seal the freemasons' fate. Apparently, freemasons sealed the fate of Edgar Allen Poe; they put a rose and cognac at the grave of Poe every year.

Here is the real story!

http://www.amlit.com/twentyss/chap5.html

THE thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge. You, who so well know the nature of my soul, will not suppose, however, that gave utterance to a threat. At length I would be avenged; this was a point definitely, settled --but the very definitiveness with which it was resolved precluded the idea of risk. I must not only punish but punish with impunity. A wrong is unredressed when retribution overtakes its redresser. It is equally unredressed when the avenger fails to make himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong.

I broke and reached him a flagon of De Grave. He emptied it at a breath. His eyes flashed with a fierce light. He laughed and threw the bottle upwards with a gesticulation I did not understand.

I looked at him in surprise. He repeated the movement --a grotesque one.

"You do not comprehend?" he said.

"Not I," I replied.

"Then you are not of the brotherhood."

"How?"

"You are not of the masons."

"Yes, yes," I said; "yes, yes."

"You? Impossible! A mason?"

"A mason," I replied.

"A sign," he said, "a sign."

"It is this," I answered, producing from beneath the folds of my roquelaire a trowel.

"You jest," he exclaimed, recoiling a few paces. "But let us proceed to the Amontillado."

"Yes," I said, "let us be gone."

"For the love of God, Montresor!"

"Yes," I said, "for the love of God!"

But to these words I hearkened in vain for a reply. I grew impatient. I called aloud --

"Fortunato!"

No answer. I called again --

"Fortunato!"

Let's review here:

1) The two men were not "bricklaying" together, Montresor had tricked Fortunato into the catacombs in order to kill him!

2) The reason for wanting to kill Fortunato was revenge for an insult.

3) The Masonic reference is CLEARLY a play on words, a "joke".

4) The "madman" was not the Freemason, but Montresor.

5) JamesJD misquotes the line: "yes mason, for the love of God" to slant his argument.

If Montresor represents "Christians" in this tale, and JamesJD finds this example admirable, then I'll gladly and proudly side with the Masons!

 

[George the 3rd]

To all members of Christian Forums,
Many of us have been working very hard over the last few weeks to help wade through the reforms proposed by Erwin. While there are many diverse feelings about what has been done, we now have the mission of getting everything settled and making sure this is a place of fellowship between believers and non-believers. (emphasis added)

http://www.christianforums.com/a130

The above can be found in an announcement about the poll to determine the future direction of this forum. If the forum becomes a place for fellowship between believers and non-believers then would it, like Masonry is accused of, become "un-Christian"?

 

[Rev Wayne]

The above can be found in an announcement about the poll to determine the future direction of this forum. If the forum becomes a place for fellowship between believers and non-believers then would it, like Masonry is accused of, become "un-Christian"?

It certainly doesn't have to, and I hope it doesn't get accused of it--because that would mean in order to be consistent, Mike and others would have to start heaping abuse, insults, and accusations on Erwin for allowing it.

 

[JamesJD]

http://www.cuttingedge.org//NEWS/n1766.cfm


http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/33rd.htm & http:/www.whale.to/b/33.html When you see the list, recall the rulers will be arrested for judgement by the Lord in Isaiah 24:21-22 & 1st book of Enoch, and the Lord strikes through kings in Psalm 110;5-6 KJV or 109 other versions. Rev 19:11/19 & Acts 4:26 & Ephesians 6:12.

According to "Riddles in Stone", Vol 1, the founding of DC involved a Baalist ceremony called "Corn, Wine and Oil", by FREEMASONS. Baalism is repeatedly condemned in the Bible, so it's NOT compatable with Christianity at all. Baalism is also seen practiced by freemasons & illuminati people at Bohemian Grove, doing Moloch human sacrifice rituals in robes... http://www.infoars.com/bg1.html

Baalism compelled parents to sacrifice their children in fire rituals in order to trade with Baalists. Baalism traditionally has temple prostitution also, which explains the gay porn stars & strippers servicing Bohemian Grove members, like Bush & Rockefeller clans.

The capitol of Baalism was Babylon,so Rev 17 & 18 is right on the money, as we see with rulers practicing Babylonian murder rituals at Bohemian Grove. "rules over the kings of the earth", "seducing them", and "drinks the blood of martyrs". The ILLuminati is the false jews of the synagogue of Satan of Rev 2:9 & 3:9, with Rothschilds and Rockefellers the top illuminati clans. Rothschild founded B'nai B'rith, of which ADL is a branch. http://www.rense.com.general68/adll.htm

B'nai B'rith is a sort of jewish freemasonry, which has admitted cross-over with freemasonry on its' website. These are false jews that follow the Babylon Talmud instead of the Torah, and practice Baalism at Bohemian Grove instead of Judaism.

Even inquisitional jesuits have been photographed at Bohemian Grove. http://www.piney.com/HislopTOC1.html Old historic pix show what looks like actual charred corpses there.

The "star of David" is actually the Baalist "star of Chiun", mentioned in the Bible.

http://www.illuminaticonfessions.com/ is the exposing by a defector who was member of the "Masonic Executive Committee" of Monte Carlo, & 33rd°, with ties to other secret societies also... a must read, as it deals with the grim plans for the "Novus Ordo Secular" New World Order.

 

[O.F.F.]

It certainly doesn't have to, and I hope it doesn't get accused of it--because that would mean in order to be consistent, Mike and others would have to start heaping abuse, insults, and accusations on Erwin for allowing it.

The allowances are not intended to have the kind of 'fellowship' of believers and non-believers as found in a Masonic Lodge, but rather for the purpose of leading them to Christ.

The objectives of Christian Forums have not changed since it's inception. They remain:

(1) to provide a safe haven online for Christians;

(2) to bring together Christians of all denominations; and

(3) to establish a Christian presence on the Web so that non-Christians may be outreached to.

Christian Forums has seen many people come to know the Lord through its ministry.

About Christian Forums (emphasis added)

If this were the stated objectives of every Grand Lodge of Freemasonry, I would run and get reinstated tomorrow!

 

[Rev Wayne]

You can spin what you think the rules say about Freemasonry, but the Administrator of this website has made it perfectly clear:

Now that you have provided us with a link to Erwin’s perfectly clear opinion, the question that remains on my mind is, "Are his sources any better than yours?" and, "Are his sources any different than yours?"

Well, he does provide a number of links. Three of those links are to published opinions of different Christian bodies, the Orthodox view, the Catholic view, and the Scottish Baptist view. We have had plenty of opportunities in the past to look at the first two, and while the third may be worth a look at some point, I would like to look first at the other links provided.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f16.html
http://www.ephesians5-11.org/index.html
http://www.pfo.org/masonldg.htm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/091...lance&n=283155

The first link leads to a site titled “Apologetics Index,” with a couple of statements on the page, with an assorted list of links at the bottom. It has a similar feel to many of the antimasonic sites we have already identified as unreliable sources. There are two brief sections at the top, (1) an “Overview” which is comprised of two articles listing Ankerberg and Weldon as the source; and (2) a list of ten points under “Incompatible With Christianity,” also listing Ankerberg and Weldon as the source. Among the links provided are links to the often-cited Alva J. McClain article, further links to Ankerberg/Weldon articles and to their books for sale, a link to saintsalive, and a link to ex-Masons for Jesus.

This assortment really speaks for itself.

The second link above is easily recognizable as the Ephesians 5-11 index page. ‘Nuff said.

The third link is to an article by Steven Tsoukalas, “The Masonic Lodge: Is it Compatible With Christianity?” It is from the Personal Freedom Outreach Quarterly Journal.

The fourth link was tossed in at the bottom of Erwin’s response, with the comment, “Maybe read this book.” The link takes the reader to the Amazon.com link to Jim Shaw’s book, The Deadly Deception: Freemasonry Exposed by One of its Top Leaders. To anyone who knows the least bit about this book, it will be plain that he was not one of Masonry’s “top leaders,” having made claims that were untrue concerning his Masonic “affiliations.” So ‘Nuff said on that one as well.

To end the post, Erwin invites the reader to look further, with:

There are plenty of other resources.

Feel free to do your own research into this matter.

Well, I have to say, after the list of sources above, I not only feel free to do my own research, I feel compelled. The “apologetics index” page was appalling, seeing it started with as poor a source as you can find, and never really improved much with the other links offered. (Ankerberg & Weldon are top-of-the-list antimasons, and have been ever since their collaborative effort The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge was published in 1989. The work is full of errors, false claims, distortions, and just plain fabrications. It has been thoroughly exposed and debunked here:
http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/SRpublications/deHoyos-chapter3.htm )

I would like to respond by addressing the Tsoukalas article. This is an antimasonic writer who has been around for quite some time, but I’m not sure I’ve really seen anything of his that has been addressed very much, or any real critique offered. But in doing so, I feel it necessary to say that I do not do this as any criticism or critique of Erwin or of his stated opinion. He has, after all, been far more gracious than many who see the lodge as incompatible with Christianity, in allowing space for both sides to express opinions, and in allowing Christian Masons to post in “Christians Only” areas of the forum.

Let me also say that the link to the Tsoukalas article is provided above if anyone wishes to see it in full. I will be citing from points throughout the article, but only briefly in order to stay within the 20% rule of this forum in regard to citations. In an article of some length, and with an approach that tries to consider all his main points, those citations can appear to be rather sparse or chopped. So I simply state at the outset that any accusations of citing from the piece “out of context” are probably inaccurate, given the limitations. I will give every effort to cite in such a way that the author’s meaning is not misrepresented, while trying to be both direct and thorough in my responses. This should not be difficult, as Mr. Tsoukalas is a very capable and precise writer, with a habit of recapping after individual sections, making it easier to encapsulate his main thoughts. That being said, I will begin.

I will begin with a comment made during some introductory remarks:

I shall concentrate only on the Blue Lodge degrees, for they are foundational and every Mason wishing to proceed to the other Rites must complete Blue Lodge. In other words, every man, in order to be called a Mason, must first enter Blue Lodge.

He makes this statement, and then almost immediately winds up doing differently, citing “C. Fred Kleinknecht, Sovereign Grand Commander of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, Southern Masonic Jurisdiction.” Not a major issue, it just seemed to be at cross-purposes to mention addressing only Blue Degrees and then make such an effort to point out the qualifications of Mr. Kleinknecht that go beyond the Blue Degrees.

Freemasonry has a theology. The word "theology" means "a word about God." Thus, theology is the discipline of making statements about God.

Not that he has said anything untrue, but he is misleading the reader, and appears to be doing so intentionally. All he has given is ONE definition of “theology,” and used that as a substitute for the sense in which the word is ACTUALLY being used:

1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
(Source: Online Dictionary.com)

Tsoukalas’ definition as given would be closer to the meaning in the first definition above. But he lists as the meaning “a word about God” and then uses a false syllogism by which he moves directly from that first statement, to a statement that in no way derives from what he has said. What he has done is a logical fallacy known as “begging the question,” a logical construct in which the conclusion and the premise are the same. In his case, it goes like this, as these are the statements he makes:

Freemasonry has a theology.
The word “theology” means “a word about God.”
THUS: Theology is the discipline of making statements about God.

What he ATTEMPTS to do is to prove Freemasonry has a theology. His first step in going about trying to establish the premise, is to simply state flat out that it DOES. If this is considered “proof,” then such logic could be used to “prove” practically ANYthing. I can prove the moon is made of green cheese if all I have to do to get the process rolling is to state, “The moon is made of green cheese.” What he has done is no different an exercise.

How one goes about the study of Freemasonry and how one forms an approach to reach Masons with the truth is vitally important. As Christians, we not only want to do our homework, but also be able to present our findings to Masons in an impeccable way. In short, we want to make our approach to Masons as airtight as possible.

Sounds more like an argument or a debating strategy than a presentation of truth. Shouldn’t truth be “airtight” without our help?

We can expect a unified body of teaching in Blue Lodge rituals and monitors even though individual Grand Lodges produce them. Though they differ minutely in wording, in essence there is great uniformity. Thus we can safely say that although the Grand Lodges are individual authorities, Freemasonry as a worldwide institution has great uniformity in its teachings.

This, quite simply, is false. The practices of antimasonic accusers everywhere puts the lie to this statement. The very fact that there are differences causes them to pick and choose what they cite, how much of it they cite, which parts they will omit by ellipsis, and which Grand Lodge Monitor they will select it from. And Tsoukalas is no exception; in fact, he gives every indication that his is intended as a pattern that is laid down for antimasons everywhere—“we want to make our approach to Masons as airtight as possible.”

A good example of the diversity found within even the most basic of Masonic statements, is the wide range of opinions stated concerning the book upon the altar in Masonry. Typically, this has been the Holy Bible. With the establishing of the “Modern Lodge” at the formation of the Grand Lodge in 1717 in England, there came a climate of change, although it was not actually signaled until Anderson’s Constitutions six years later. It began as a statement that those of other religions may be welcomed into Masonry. As it developed, the use of the Bible, the traditional Book on the altar, began to be questioned in regard to someone of another faith being obligated upon it. Soon there was recognition that with the change in practice, there needed to be a change in wording, since “Holy Bible” might not be a reflection of ALL of Masonry any longer. And so at first there came references to a “book of the law,” and later to a “Volume of Sacred Law.” The latter term is the one that began to stick, and is now a common term in Masonry—though this has come about only within the last several decades.

The result has been, that some have clung to the traditional, while some have welcomed the change. In my own jurisdiction, the term “Volume of Sacred Law” does not even appear in the Ahiman Rezon (the official monitor for Masons in S.C.), or suffice it to say, I have not found it there. “Holy Bible” is the term used in reference to our Book on the altar, and it is the term used to define the “Great Light of Masonry.” But that is not true in every Grand Lodge in the U.S., there are some who use the term “Volume of Sacred Law.”

(CONTINUED NEXT POST)

 

[Rev Wayne]

A unique perspective, however, is offered by the UGLE, which makes this statement:

The Bible, referred to by Freemasons as the Volume of the Sacred Law, is always open at every Masonic meeting.

This makes the term “Volume of Sacred Law” a subordinate term, and one which is specifically defined to be the Bible. This is actually an affirmation of two separate points: (1) “The Bible is always open at every Masonic meeting,” and (2) “The Bible is referred to by Freemasons as the Volume of Sacred Law.” This statement is radically different than saying that the volume of sacred law may be defined different ways, as some may state the case. And this does not even begin to cover the range of thought expressed in the various Grand Lodge jurisdictions, some of which refer to any other book used by a candidate for his obligation as a “substitute FOR the VSL,” others simply as a “substitute VSL,” etc.—but these, of course, would be more finely nuanced in meaning, and do not reflect as strong a distinction as those already mentioned.

At any rate, it is very easy to see that the premise that “Though they [rituals and monitors] differ minutely in wording, in essence there is great uniformity,” cannot be maintained. Even when considering terms as basic as “The Great Light of Masonry” and “Volume of Sacred Law,” there can certainly be a wide range of distinctively different meanings.

In the past, as well as in the present, the Christian apologetic for the most part began with the quoting of various Masonic authors' works, then ended with refutation based on the Bible. Though the latter must always remain, the former should change. The Christian should start with Masonic rituals and monitors, then proceed to biblical refutation. The educated opinions of Masonic scholars, then, should be cited to buttress conclusions and the teachings of ritual. There is a reason for this. All too often, Masons, when confronted with conclusions of certain of their brethren who are vastly more learned in Craft studies than they, push these conclusions away by stating, "that's his opinion." By directly citing Masonic ritual, the Mason must either face the official citation head on or ignore the obvious.

The problem with his suggestion is, (1) it does not get translated into practice in the manner he describes, and (2) there are other practices he neglects to mention, which are far more common. The most common practice is to cite that which is slightly different in a Monitor or two, and then portray it as though it is representative of the whole of Masonry, when usually it is not. (In fact, I have found very few of the rituals of Masonry that do not have significant differences from one jurisdiction to another.) And for some reason he seems to have left out the other side of antimasonic citing of rituals and monitors—surely he should have given his readers some kind of admonition to be sure and omit anything that shoots down their own argument—after all, it is a standard antimasonic practice. (Got to make the case “airtight,” you know.)
But the REAL sleight-of-hand being pulled here is, they actually do the process he describes, only in reverse. The “educated opinions of Masonic scholars” are the very heart of the argument in their eyes, and it shows in the way they are emphasized, despite his instructions as to how they should be utilized. And these are selected not for being “educated opinions,” they are selected because of slight nuances of wording that makes them more accusable. These are then coupled with selected portions of the rituals which they wish to accuse, and presented as “evidence” supporting the foregone “conclusion” they began with.

A case in point is this very article by Tsoukalas, “The Masonic Lodge: Is it Compatible With Christianity?” published by Personal Freedom Outreach’s Quarterly Journal. Rather than follow his own pattern as he has just described it, he begins the article with a quote from Allan E. Roberts:

Allen E. Roberts, in his The Craft and Its Symbols, writes, "You have entered a new world. Symbolically and spiritually you have been reborn. This started the moment you were prepared to become a Freemason."

The quote was chosen, no doubt, for the mention by Roberts that the “rebirth” spoken of is both symbolical and spiritual. I do not personally own a copy of the book in question, but in my experience, the pattern of such quotes by antimasons has always tended toward the citation of snippets which may be noted for their singularity. And when examined in light of the accusation which follows, the pattern is invariably one of going against the grain of general Masonic thought in favor of the unique or peculiar expression by an occasional Masonic author. Depending on the individual case, this may be an expression they would use simply by itself; it usually (but not always) will be further isolated by removing the barest possible portion of it to divorce it from its context; and often the citation will be “sanitized” by the removal of portions which, if allowed to remain within the portion selected for citation, might render dubious the claims being made, or perhaps negate them altogether. (Again, Tsoukalas is no exception, as I shall show very shortly in covering the remainder of his article.)

What Tsoukalas is doing here is laying out, in instruction booklet fashion, a pattern for building antimasonic arguments. The only thing is, he colors it with his own whitewash of what is actually taking place—the creation by selective citations, deliberate omissions, and strategic arrangement, of plausible-sounding arguments intended to give the appearance, by his own admission, of being “airtight.” These are then buttressed with specious arguments like the false syllogism by which he created the convincing-sounding “Freemasonry has a theology” to sway anyone gullible enough to believe it. With that in mind, let us continue:

since Masons who profess Christianity often read Christian theology into the teachings of the Craft, we need to propose to them that the institution is not doing this.

The first half of this statement is simply false, which I will get to shortly. There are enough references in Masonry that are distinctly Christian, that any informed Christian should easily recognize them. Yet, at the same time there are, admittedly, references even by Masons stating the same thing that Tsoukalas does, making this an even more difficult issue to sort out. That particular quandary is one that could not possibly be covered within the scope of this article, and one on which I shall reserve comment for the moment.

the Masonic Lodge gives to its initiates an all–encompassing Masonic Deity and a plan of salvation. Let's move now to the god of Freemasonry.

Wrong on both counts. Let’s address each of these separately.

In Masonic ritual, GAOTU is described and addressed as one Mason leads all the rest in prayer to this one deity, and all the Masons assembled find their individual deities within GAOTU.

As an example, he cites:

"Most Holy and Glorious Lord God! The Great Architect of the Universe, the giver of all good gifts and graces. ... In Thy name we assemble. ... And we beseech thee, O Lord God, to bless our present assembling, and to illuminate our minds, that we may walk in the light of thy countenance; and when the trials of our probationary state are over, be admitted into THE TEMPLE 'not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.'"

Gee, I wonder what he left out? Let’s look:

Most holy and glorious Lord God, the great Architect of the Universe, the giver of all good gifts and graces: Thou hast promised that, "where two or three are gathered together in thy name, thou wilt be in the midst of them, and bless them." In thy name we assemble, most humbly beseeching thee to bless us in all our undertakings, that we may know and serve thee aright, and that all our actions may tend to thy glory, and to our advancement in knowledge and virtue. And we beseech thee, O Lord God, to bless our present assembling, and to illuminate our minds, that we may walk in the light of thy countenance; and when the trials of our probationary state are over, be admitted into THE TEMPLE "not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

Two significant portions were omitted:

1. Thou hast promised that, "where two or three are gathered together in thy name, thou wilt be in the midst of them, and bless them."

You don’t suppose he omitted that because he knew these were the words of Jesus, do you?

I said a bit earlier that I would get back to the comment about “Masons who profess Christianity often read Christian theology into the teachings of the Craft.”

The above part of the opening prayer is definitely NOT “reading Christian theology into the teachings of the craft.” It is a direct quote, even put in quotation marks to signify it is direct, of the words of Jesus Himself. There are a significant number of these that may be found in the rituals. And the omission speaks for itself: Tsoukalas knew EXACTLY where the quote came from, and did not wish to include the very line that destroys his argument.

2. most humbly beseeching thee to bless us in all our undertakings, that we may know and serve thee aright, and that all our actions may tend to thy glory, and to our advancement in knowledge and virtue.

The reason for the second omission by Tsoukalas is not so obvious as the first, especially when we consider that the remainder of the prayer that follows the above omission is very similar to this, praying for blessing. But the portion following this one contains the phrase “bless our present assembling,” so that it becomes limited to the Masonic assembly being undertaken. That perhaps is the reason it was not omitted as well, to give the impression of a Masonry-centered and Masonry-focused prayer, which is not the case. The omitted portion above pertains to our actions in general, not just during the time Lodge is in session, asking for blessing so that “we may know and serve Thee aright, and that our actions may tend to thy glory.”

Well, we just can’t have a prayer showing Masons asking “to know and serve God the right way,” or for all their actions to “tend to the glory of God,” now can we?

But the most noticeable and the most glaring thing about this is:

By deliberate omission and by picking and choosing what he will cite from Masonry, Tsoukalas is engaging in the same kind of DECEPTION as so many other antimasonic writers have done, using the same techniques.

(CONTINUED NEXT POST)

 

[Rev Wayne]

Next he goes for the double whammy:

"In his private devotions a man may petition God or Jehovah, Allah or Buddha, Mohammed or Jesus; he may call upon the God of Israel or the Great First Cause. In the Masonic Lodge he hears humble petition to the Great Architect of the Universe, finding his own deity under that name."

Further,

"You have learned that Freemasonry calls God 'The Great Architect of the Universe.' This is the Freemason's special name for God, because He is universal. He belongs to all men regardless of their religious persuasion. All wise men acknowledge His authority. In his private devotions a Mason will pray to Jehovah, Mohammed, Allah, Jesus, or the Deity of his choice. In a Masonic Lodge, however, the Mason will find the name of his Deity within the Great Architect of the Universe."

These just HAVE to be the only two sources anywhere in Freemasonry that make the unfortunate and incorrect reference to GAOTU as a “name”—at least, they certainly represent a minority in Masonry, and not something that is anywhere close to being “Masonic opinion.” The phrase was actually used for the completely opposite purpose of providing a non-sectarian point of reference to illustrate the Masonic stance of neutrality by NOT using a name in reference to God. Since Masonry is not a religion and makes no pretensions to be, it makes no statement or choice of who God must be to the individual Mason. The use of the simple phrase “Great Architect of the Universe” is no different in Masonry than is the practice within the English language of using the generic term “God” in reference to the Supreme Being. The only thing the author(s) either of the above quotes may be guilty of, would be imprecision of language, along with a technically incorrect designation of GAOTU as a “name.” Not only Tsoukalas, but many others have tried to make hay by using that imprecision as a basis for accusation. Their whole pretense could have been avoided by more careful writing, but we are all human and express our thoughts different ways.

Some Masonic apologists have criticized Christian apologists who make an issue of the phrase GAOTU, stating that Calvin used "Architect" to describe God. Though Calvin and Freemasonry use the phrase, the issue is the content of the phrase, not the phrase itself. Calvin obviously defined Architect vastly different from that of Masonry. His was the one true and living God who exists eternally as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Freemasonry's god is able to include within himself Vishnu, Brahman, the Great First Cause, Jesus, Allah and any other deity a man may confess.

Tsoukalas in this last phrase reverses what is taking place in Masonic prayer. Each Mason prays individually, and would naturally, in his own private thoughts, use whatever name is found in his own religion as he does so. “Freemasonry’s God including within himself” is not the action taking place, it is “individual Masons praying to God” as each of them does individually, with the sole difference that they are all in one place. No “name” is used. The practice is no different than any gathering of people in a non-sectarian setting employing prayer, whether that be prayer at a football game, prayer over a hospital intercom into patients’ rooms, etc.

But even if this had to be narrowed down to being only one God, what God would that be? George Oliver presented a convincing case for this one years ago. In an argument preserved by his father between a man arguing for Jewish origins of Masonry, and a Dr. Manningham, the following exchange takes place:

“ ‘But,’ said the Jew, reserving his strongest argument to the last, ‘What can the repeated references in Freemasonry to the Great Creator of the Universe, JEHOVAH, the Tetragrammaton of the Jews, mean, if they do not point out the Jewish origin of Masonry?’
“ ‘These references,’ Dr. Manningham replied, ‘are decisive of the question at issue. T.G.A.O.T.U. is an undoubted landmark of ancient Masonry, acknowledged at the revival in 1717, and explained in the authorized lectures to mean, HIM that was placed on the topmost pinnacle of the temple: and it is not possible by any process of reasoning to apply it otherwise than to Christ, without questioning the truth of Sacred Writ; for no other person that the world ever saw had been placed in that position. It follows, therefore, that the founder of Christianity constitutes an authentic and unalterable landmark of ancient Masonry. (Oliver, Revelations of a Square, p. 81)

Dr. Manningham appears to have been correct in what he stated. I have found the same wording continued in Masonry as late as 1818 in Hardie’s New Freemason’s Monitor, and as early as 1730 in Samuel Prichard’s anti-masonic polemic Masonry Dissected.

With the use of GAOTU by John Calvin, and with Masonry’s statement cited above, the derivation and meaning of the term appear to be “airtight.” If the God of Masonry suddenly were required of necessity to be revealed by the name used by any of the sectarian religions, the above statement shows by the very derivation of the phrase that there is only one person to whom it could possibly refer, Jesus Christ. The same derivation is further elucidated by the opening Lodge prayer which states, “Thou hast said that wherever two or three are gathered together in Thy name. . .,” another reference which has only one possible person in mind, Jesus Christ, of whom we have the biblical record indicating He was the one who spoke those words.

Masons, of course, do NOT insist on limiting the phrase to sectarian definitions, and allow those who are not of the Christian religion to define the term as they choose. My point is, (1) that since Mr. Tsoukalas has defined for us the parameters making ritual the key point of reference, then by all means let’s get to the very basics of what ritual says; and (2) for those who DO insist on defining Masonry’s terms in sectarian manner—guided, of course, by the first principle established already that ritual is the chief definer of Masonry’s terms—there can be no disputing the fact that ritual content (specifically, the opening prayer) and ritual derivation (of the term GAOTU as shown) would allow of no other interpretation than what has just been described. But, as pointed out, Masonry makes no such insistence.

He now moves to a section titled “In Search of Light,” making the following conclusion:

Following Christ means no longer walking in darkness (John 8:12). But right off the bat in the first degree, the Mason who professes Christ is admitting he is in darkness.

This has been covered enough times to be redundant. He simply has no understanding of its symbolic meaning. The Mason symbolically represents the birth and early years of life, when a person truly comes into the world, as it were, in darkness, and having much to learn. No one is professing to be in literal spiritual darkness.

Next, he moves to the lambskin apron lecture and the common gavel. Both were amply refuted here as they have always been, and there is no necessity of showing once again why the accusation of “teaching salvation” is in error. I have shown why both the purity requirement and the practice of moral improvement are Christian in nature. No further elaboration is needed. Also, the quote of the lambskin pronouncement so often accused, is a direct quote from a Christian baptismal formula, as has been shown. One may as well accuse Christianity of a “false plan of salvation.”

(CONTINUED NEXT POST)

 

[Rev Wayne]

HIRAM ABIFF

Tsoukalas quotes the following prayer from the 3rd degree:

"Thou, O God, knowest our down–sitting and our up–rising, and understandest our thoughts afar off. ... Man that is born of woman is of few days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth as a flower, and is cut down. ... For there is hope of a tree if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. But man dieth and wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost and where is he? ... Yet, O Lord! have compassion on the children of Thy creation; administer them comfort in time of trouble, and save them with an everlasting salvation. Amen."

Apparently he quoted from a different version of the prayer. Mine doesn't have those little dots. Instead, mine reads:

Thou, О God, knowest our down-sitting and our uprising, and understandest our thoughts afar off. Shield and defend us from the evil intentions of our enemies, and support us under the trials and afflictions which we are destined to endure while traveling through this vale of tears. Man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. He cometh forth as a flower and is cut down; he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not. Seeing that his days aге determined, the number of his months is with thee; Thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass: turn from him that he may rest till he shall accomplish his day. For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. But man dieth and wasteth away, yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the waters fail from the sea and the flood decayeth and drieth up, sо man lieth down, and riseth not up till the heavens shall be no more. Yet, 0 Lord, have compassion on the children of thy creation; administer them comfort in time of trouble, and save them with an everlasting salvation. Amen.

Tsoukalas also follows the standard practice of quoting the infamous (and no longer existent anywhere in Masonry, as far as I know) Kentucky Monitor quote:

"All [antiquity] believed in a future life, to be attained by purification and trials; in a state or successive states of reward and punishment; and in a Mediator or Redeemer, by whom the Evil Principle was to be overcome and the Supreme Deity reconciled to His creatures. ... The Hindus called him Krishna; the Chinese, Kioun–tse; the Persians, Sosiosch; the Chaldeans, Dhou vanai; the Egyptians, Horus; Plato, Love; the Scandinavians, Balder; the Christians, Jesus; Masons, Hiram."

Gee, there’s that little stutter-step ellipsis again. Let’s look at the FULL quote:

All believed in a future life, to be attained by purification and trials; in a state or successive states of reward and punishment; and in a Mediator or Redeemer, by whom the Evil Principle was to be overcome and the Supreme Deity reconciled to His creatures. The belief was general that He was to be born of a virgin and suffer a painful death. The Hindus called him Krishna; the Chinese, Kioun-tse; the Persians, Sosiosch; the Chaldeans, Dhouvanai; the Egyptians, Horus; Plato, Love; the Scandinavians, Balder; the Christians, Jesus; Masons, Hiram.

Apparently Mr. Tsoukalas wishes us to pretend the quote of Henry Pirtle in the Kentucky Monitor did not say what it does about a Redeemer “born of a virgin,” and “suffering a painful death.” Do you suppose it sounded too much like Jesus for him? And isn’t that an ironic twist, considering the common antimasonic accusation about “taking Jesus out of the Lodge,” for an antimason to take any similarity to Jesus out of Masonic ritual before making his accusation, lest some non-Mason should discover even the slightest reference to Him there?

Mr. Tsoukalas might also consider quoting from elsewhere, for instance, from Albert Mackey, in Symbolism of Freemasonry:

Mount Calvary is consecrated to the Christian as the place where his crucified Lord gave the last great proof of the second life, and fully established the doctrine of the resurrection which he had come to teach. It was the sepulchre of him

"Who captive led captivity,
Who robbed the grave of victory,
And took the sting from death."

It is consecrated to the Mason, also, as the scene of the euresis, the place of the discovery, where the same consoling doctrines of the resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul are shadowed forth in profoundly symbolic forms.

These great truths constitute the very essence of Christianity, in which it differs from and excels all religious systems that preceded it; they constitute, also, the end, aim, and object of all Freemasonry, but more especially that of the Third Degree, whose peculiar legend, symbolically considered, teaches nothing more nor less than that there is an immortal and better part within us, which, as an emanation from that divine spirit which pervades all nature, can never die.

Finally, Tsoukalas quotes from various memorial and burial rituals, and says:

Given the teachings of Freemasonry that have been documented in this article, it should not surprise us to find statements in Masonic funeral and memorial services to the effect that brother so–and–so, whether he be Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Unitarian or Christian, is in the Celestial Lodge above. I often ask Masons this question: "On what grounds do Grand Lodges affirm that deceased Masons have ascended to the Celestial Lodge above?"

My reply would be, “On what grounds would he affirm otherwise?” And what Christian pastor would affirm any different prospect? How many Christian funerals, I wonder, has Mr. Tsoukalas ever attended, where it was declared, “Well, I’m sorry, Mrs. Jones, but considering the kind of life your husband lived, and the lack of any certainty of witness of giving his life to Christ, there’s nothing else we may presume except, he probably busted hell wide open.”

I’ve looked around, and I can’t seem to find any examples of Christian pastors ever saying anything at a funeral service about the dearly departed having gone anyplace else than to heaven. If Mr. Tsoukalas will raise this objection on the ground of Masonic proclamations of resurrection to eternal life, then in all fairness he must also criticize Christian pastors, who seem to be doing exactly the same thing, with no regards to one’s profession of faith or lack thereof, every time they conduct a funeral for one who died never having professed Christ.

The conclusion he makes:

Freemasonry takes men of different religions, initiates them into its spiritual fold in the name of GAOTU, provides for them a way of salvation and, as we have seen in more than a few cases, declares that its deceased brethren have entered the Celestial Lodge above. Since belief in Christ is absolutely necessary for one to be saved, Freemasonry, if it continues to promulgate such teachings, will always be at odds with the Christian faith. Christians, therefore, should have nothing to do with Freemasonry because it undercuts the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Churches and denominations should educate themselves regarding Masonry and take a stand against it.

Well, we’ve shown here:

--Masons are not “initiated into a spiritual fold;”
--Nor would this be done in the “name” of GAOTU, which is not a name at all;
--Masonry “provides” no “way of salvation”;
--Masonry does declare that its brethren have “entered the celestial lodge above,” but in doing so they make no different declaration than do Christian pastors presiding at funerals of non-Christians;
--Masonry is not “at odds with the Christian faith” in its burial practices in this regard, rather, it appears to be in tandem with it;

So the “Christians, therefore. . .” is a statement that does not follow from the stated premises.
And, by all means, I am all for churches, denominations, and individual Christians truly educating themselves regarding Masonry, but I don’t feel it will cause them to take a stand against it. On the contrary, my experience has been that Christians who are presented the REAL “truth about Freemasonry” are most often led in quite the opposite direction—mainly because most of them have been fed a steady diet of the antimasonic hype.

 

[O.F.F.]

Wow Wayne, those are some awfully long posts. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands defending Freemasnry instead of spreading the gospel. Oh, but that's the right thing to do for a 'man of the Apron.' My bad.

All believed in a future life, to be attained by purification and trials; in a state or successive states of reward and punishment; and in a Mediator or Redeemer, by whom the Evil Principle was to be overcome and the Supreme Deity reconciled to His creatures. The belief was general that He was to be born of a virgin and suffer a painful death. The Hindus called him Krishna; the Chinese, Kioun-tse; the Persians, Sosiosch; the Chaldeans, Dhouvanai; the Egyptians, Horus; Plato, Love; the Scandinavians, Balder; the Christians, Jesus; Masons, Hiram.

Apparently the "man of the Apron" agrees with this statement in the Kentucky Monitor, wanting to make sure it was quoted in its entirety. And he wishes us to pretend that, just because he placed back in what Mr. Tsoukalas took out of the quote, it doesn't say what it does about comparing Jesus Christ (THE ONE AND ONLY MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN -- 1 Timothy 2:5) to the false messiahs of some of the false religions of the pagan world -- to include the Masonic Savior Hiram Abiff. We should be appalled at this support coming from a Christian pastor. But, since he is a 'man of the Apron' we should not be shocked at all.

But its gets worse when you consider the words of his frat brother, Masonic author, Lynn Perkins:

Therefore Masonry teaches that redemption and salvation are both the power and the responsibility of the individual Mason. Saviors like Hiram Abiff can and do show the way, but men must always follow and demonstrate, each for himself, his power to save himself, to build his own spiritual fabric in his own time and way. Every man in essence is his own savior and redeemer; for if he does not save himself, he will not be saved.

The Meaning of Masonry, p. 95

 

[AndrewCS]

Really,

Personally, I really do not see an ongoing argument like this being from God.

Whatever situation we find ourselves in where satan’s lies are being exposed satan will use people to defend them and continue to deceive people and take them down the path to destruction.

These are the choices gives He gives US ALL and if anyone doubts that, the best place to find the answers in the BIBLE.

Read DEUTERONOMY.

God Bless.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Wow Wayne, those are some awfully long posts. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands defending Freemasnry instead of spreading the gospel. Oh, but that's the right thing to do for a 'man of the Apron.' My bad.

Wow, Mike, you never seem to improve upon the methods. You know, the habit of going for the ad hominem when you have no reply?

You seem to forget--or come to think of it, perhaps you didn't know, I type 90-100 WPM, what I posted above is a piece of cake. And besides, quite a bit of it is already compiled in one file or another, so there's quite a bit of cut and paste too.

But you go on with your imaginary ad hominem accusations, don't mind me.

Apparently the "man of the Apron" agrees with this statement in the Kentucky Monitor, wanting to make sure it was quoted in its entirety.

That's a hoot! I was putting back IN what ST deliberately left OUT. These guys are so afraid of people seeing that Jesus hasn't really been cut out of Masonry as they claim, that they will go to any lengths--ESPECIALLY the edit by ellipsis. At least he doesn't go full tilt and use it to create falsehoods, as his mentors Ankerberg and Weldon do.

And he wishes us to pretend that, just because he placed back in what Mr. Tsoukalas took out of the quote, it doesn't say what it does about comparing Jesus Christ (THE ONE AND ONLY MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN -- 1 Timothy 2:5) to the false messiahs of some of the false religions of the pagan world -- to include the Masonic Savior Hiram Abiff.

You know the truth of the matter, Mike, so why go into immediate denial and pretense? This is nothing new, after all. Why do you think the Pirtle material got removed? Because the KY people realized that the peculiar wording as Pirtle put it was opening up an avenue of attack for screwball mischaracterizations by antimasons.

And why do antimasons continue to attack Masonry for that which appears nowhere in Masonry at the present time? Because they are devoted to the sole purpose of accusing, apparently. Thank God the accusers of Christianity are wiser than that, I don't have to defend against people still accusing Christians of believing the earth is the center of the universe.

At least there are SOME people around who recognize when their argument has lost all its punch.

Why don't you catch up and criticize something currently found in Masonry?

The argument never amounted to much in the first place. Check the context and you can clearly see that the subject under discussion by both Perkins and Pirtle was, a comparison of the Messiah motif as it appears in various religions around the world--which it clearly DOES.

The only thing they are guilty of is an unfortunate lack of language precision--which, also unfortunately, those who lie in wait to pounce upon and mischaracterize will always be quick to notice.

But in reality, they are not alone in the way in which they state it. Many Christian writers express it the same way. But at least they have a readership that does not include antimasons, so they don't have to deal with such inanity when they talk about "Saviors."

For example:

Messiahs: Christian and Pagan, Richard G. Badges, Boston: Gorham Press, 1918.
Messiahs: Their Roles in Civilization, Wilson D. Wallis, London: Porcupine Press, 1985.
Messiahs: The Visions and Prophecies for the Second Coming, John Hogue, Boston: Element, 1999.

And that's just a sample, there are a lot more I could list, except I'd be accused of spending too much time on it.

So I'll just stick with posting enough of them to prove just how ridiculous this so-called "accusation" really is.