Freemasonry: "Making Good Men Better" Fact or Farce?

[O.F.F.]

For centuries Freemasonry prides itself on its marketing slogan, "We make good men better!" In fact, some lodges and Grand Lodges have emphasized it even more by saying, "Masonry does not seek to reform men. It seeks to bind better men, those who are already good and true. . .Freemasonry works to make better men good, and good men even better." (emphasis added) If asked, "do you consider yourself a good person?" very few people would answer, no. Perhaps this is why such marketing has enabled them to attract millions of members, since it began more than 200 years ago; although its membership has been declining over the past 50 years or so.

The Grand Lodge of Virginia states:

Not all men can become Masons, however. Masonry does not purport to make “bad men good,” only “good men better.” Only men of good character are accepted into the Fraternity. Masonic lodges review every applicant’s moral character – and the centuries-old “blackball” system is still in place; members must be voted in by a 100% vote of Lodge members present. (emphasis added)

This would suggest that 100% of candidates for Masonry have been determined by the Lodge to be "good" men prior to initiation, and they become even "better" after becoming a member of the fraternity.

One of the primary things Freemasonry boasts about, as if to prove that they do accomplish this objective, is their philanthropy. There is no question that the Masonic Order, and its appending bodies, have done many good charitable works over the years, and in many ways they still do today. However, philanthropy might make them feel better about themselves, but it really does nothing to make a man, a better person.

This thread is provided to allow readers to discuss the disturbing information contained in the links below; and the ones to follow as they emerge in the news. So check them out and decide for yourself whether this ambitious Masonic goal is indeed a fact or a farce.

The Restaurant at the End of the Masonic Universe​

Findings 2008: Shriners' Corruption, Jesters' Prostitution

An Earlier Ponzi Pain Lingers

Scarborough Sex Case Teacher is Suspended

Grand Lodge Reverses its Previous Grand Master's Attempt to Do the Right Thing

Shriners CFO pleads guilty to stealing $828K from Hospital

Beware of Dog, or Dog Beware?

Mason Convicted of Embezzling His Lodge and other Masonic Groups

Shriners' Charity Cash Went to Booze, Parties, and All Expense-Paid Trips

Masonic police officer convicted of murder; juror (a member of his lodge) dismissed for allegedly flashing him Masonic hand gestures

Shriners' Shame​

These are just 11 articles, but there are dozens more. Of course Masons and their sympathizers will come running here to say that Christians and church leaders have also been guilty of wrongdoing. Yes, we know the stories; from Jim Baker, and Jimmy Swaggart, to the more recent case of Ted Haggard. It's true, Christians sin too. But here is the distinction:

The Bible teaches that no one is "good," no not one (Romans 3:12); except God Himself (Luke 18:19) and that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). In fact, the Bible tells us that God says even the good that we do is like filthy rags to him (Isaiah 64:6). This is because the God that we serve is a Holy God. His standard for being "good" is so high that even a lustful thought is considered adultery, and to hate someone is considered murder to Him.

If this is what God's Word says, then by what authority does a man-made religious organization like Freemasonry use to justify that some men are good? The answer came from the quote above from the Grand Lodge of Virginia. Masons decide which men are "good" enough to join their ranks, and that those that do are all supposedly good.

The difference we see from the examples shown in these articles is that while Freemasonry is in the false business of "making good men better," God is in the very real business of offering men His grace. This is to say it is God's Will, for His honor and glory, to justify the wicked (Romans 4:5) through their faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ given in exchange for their wickedness by His substitutionary atonement for their sin (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The Lodge say, "We don't need more men in Masonry, but more Masonry in men." But God says to every man, that what they need is "Christ in you, the only hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27), and in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom, knowledge, and truth. Those are my thoughts; and I welcome yours.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The Bible teaches that no one is "good," no not one (Romans 3:12); except God Himself (Luke 18:19) and that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). In fact, the Bible tells us that God says even the good that we do is like filthy rags to him (Isaiah 64:6). This is because the God that we serve is a Holy God. His standard for being "good" is so high that even a lustful thought is considered adultery, and to hate someone is considered murder to Him.

If this is what God's Word says, then by what authority does a man-made religious organization like Freemasonry use to justify that some men are good?

Hmmmm.....maybe: the words of Jesus Himself?

The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; (Luke 6:45)

 

[cemab4y]

I think if you gave Freemasonry a chance, you might like what you see. Visit:

www dot masonicinfo dot com

 

[2ndRateMind]

Well, I think I ought to declare my interest. I am not a Mason, I have never have been a Mason, and, if asked, I suspect that despite being flattered, I would decline. I cannot see myself ever becoming a Mason.

But that is only one theme of the thread.

The other, more generic issue, is whether there is such a thing as a 'good man'. And, being more naive than Christian, I am inclined to believe that there is. It does not serve to point out individuals who the world considers 'good' despite being non-Christians. Though counter examples, such as Gandhi, or the Hindu gurus, or Prince Gautama, the Buddha, or the Dalai Lama, destroy the contention that 'no man is good unless he is Christian', I suspect they will not persuade in this instance.

What is required is a generic refutation of a common Christian misanthropy, that fallen humans are incapable of virtue unless they: become born again/get baptised/get confirmed/believe exactly what I do. Stated so baldly, it seems incredible (in the true sense of unbelievable, as well as the corrupted sense of astonishing), that anyone might seriously hold to such a tenet. Yet many Christians do.

Nevertheless, the majority of nations are not Christian, and the majority of nations carry on in quite civilised ways, supporting charities, building communities, looking after their aged, their young, their poor, their sick and their disabled, as soon as they have the necessary resources to do so. These seem to me to be indications not only of individual goodness, but of a more general, communal goodness. The truth is that man in his native state is not the wretched creature that a Christianity formed in the bloody dark ages took him for: he is part bad, undeniably. But he is also part good.

And this part-goodness does not disappear because no man is perfect; to elide the two, as the opening posts attempts, is to make a category error. Goodness, or badness, if you prefer, is an attribute that exists on a grey scale ranging from the alleged perfection of Christ, through mainly virtuous, through fair-to-middling, through extremely sinful, to the deplorably evil. A man does not have to be perfect to be good, any more than a man needs to be Shakespeare to be a playwrite.

And if Masonry seeks to develop those aspects of a man that are good, so that he becomes better, then I think this is a most worthy ambition, and to be applauded.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[Rev Wayne]

2nd, I appreciate those thoughts, and I am in agreement. We've fielded that challenge that there's "no such thing as a good man," seven ways from sundown. What you just shared from a philosophical standpoint, I have tried to present to questioners from a viewpoint that is both logical and biblical.

I do so because challengers on this point present the question as though it's been poured into a concrete foundation, citing a passage where Jesus questions, "Why do you call me good? There is none good, but the Father." To me, they have never probed the questions that naturally arise from a too-literal handling of that text. For instance, what do we do with the introduction of division into the Trinity. The Trinity, after all, is supposed to be a Tri-Unity. Yet if we take Jesus so extremely literally in that passage, we have to account for the fact that Jesus says that even He HIMSELF is not good, which I find problematic in more ways than you can count: what does that do to the virgin birth? how do we account for the correlative point that if Jesus truly WAS saying He is not good, then what is the alternative? a "bad" Jesus? How do we have someone holding a position as the "second person" of the Triune Godhead who says He is not good? How does He later say "My Father and I are one" if He really DID mean "God is good, and I'm not?"

Those are some of the logical posers that arise from a too-literal view of what Jesus said in that instance. The biblical record presents even more of a problem for it. Job was described, not just as a "good" man, but as a "perfect" man. As a faithful Arminian who can tell you most Masons would not fall in the Calvinist camp, I can tell you, that passage will send Masonry's critics into conniptions, and you'd think you committed a venial sin by merely bringing it up. They will try to dodge it, or spin it, or ignore it, but I have never seen any antimasonic critic who ever actually dealt with it as the scripture that it is.

But if you think THAT one gives them fits, imagine what they do when I point to the words of Jesus, "The good man out of the treasure of his heart brings forth good things, while the evil man out of the treasure of his heart brings forth evil things." "How is it," I reason with them, "that Jesus speaks of this person whom you say (hypothetically anyway) does not, or cannot, exist?"

Of course, there are other places I can go with it, but those have always been my favorites, the one because it goes even further beyond the point at hand, the other because it puts the antimasonic critic into the quandary of supporting an interpretation whose premises have Jesus contradicting Himself.

Your post gives me food for further thought, and for that I give you my thanks for sharing it.

 

[Albion]

I've never considered the slogan, "making good men better" to be deeply theological. We all say things like, "Joe was a good man," when we mean only to say that he was honorable in his dealings with other people, or generous, or a "good family man ,"-- meaning, of course, that he cared about his family.

That men are sinners doesn't seem to be the point at all, nor for that matter is the statement a rejection of such a concept.

Therefore, I'd say "Sure." Masonry makes good men better.

It intends to NOT induct men who have a bad reputation to begin with, so the slogan makes sense on that level; and because the organization gives generously to charity, promotes patrotism and mutual kindness among its members, it does try to make good men better. So also do dozens of other organizations.

 

[boneo]

A couple of years ago I was invited to join the masons by a friend of mine, I declined the invite because to join you have to believe in a divine entity and I cannot say that I do. My friend tried to convince me to lie about my beliefs but I couldn't do that.

I found out as much as I could about Freemasonry and concluded that it seems to make men's businesses better, but I doubt it makes the men much better.

 

[Albion]

A couple of years ago I was invited to join the masons by a friend of mine, I declined the invite because to join you have to believe in a divine entity and I cannot say that I do. My friend tried to convince me to lie about my beliefs but I couldn't do that.

I found out as much as I could about Freemasonry and concluded that it seems to make men's businesses better, but I doubt it makes the men much better.

The friend acted improperly, probably because he wanted so much for his good friend to be with him in his fraternity. Still wrong of him to do. It's not considered proper to urge anyone to join the Masons, and suggesting that you lie wouldn't be honorable in any organisation that I know of.

As for making men's businesses better, I have never observed that this is the case. It may be so in the UK, and it might have been so in the USA many years ago, but, if so, it's not anymore. The average church congregation generates more business contacts and customers for its members who are in business for themselves than the lodge does.

 

[O.F.F.]

Hi 2ndRM,

Thanks for responding to my original post (OP). You make some valid points; there is an element of good and bad in all mankind. No one has to be a born-again Christian to be good. We also know, as I pointed out in the OP, that people are capable of continuing to sin even after coming to Christ. And, non-Christians are capable of being good and doing good things even if they never come to Christ.

But I think you missed the point of the original post. The point is not that man is incapable of being good, it's that man is incapable of being good enough to please a perfectly Holy God. And, therefore, man is in desperate need of the grace of God in order to be acceptable to spend eternity with Him. For such a pardon to take place some form of recompense is required. So God gave His Son, who is the epitome of absolute sinless perfection, as a substitutionary sacrifice in exchange for our sinful imperfection (2 Corinthians 5:21). If genuine Christians fail at times to live up to God standards, how much can men be made better by the man-made standards of Freemasonry? I think the articles provided in the OP answer that question; they can't.

As for the Mason Wayne who responded to you, he infers that Christians against Freemasonry have no clue as to which passages in Scripture to take literally, and which ones not to. Rather than provide clarity to terms found in passages that seem to pose a biblical contradiction, which he should have been trained in seminary to do, he leaves them as is in hopes he will trip his "critics into conniptions."

He cites Mark 10:18, and suggests that we should not take Jesus too literally, when biblically mature Christians know perfectly well that Jesus was making the point in this passage that He is God. So of course we're to take His statement literally when He said no one is good but God Himself. Likewise he cites Matthew 12:35 and suggests that Jesus was describing good men vs. evil men, when he was actually describing the quality of the words or speech that flows from a man whose heart is bent toward good vs. words from a man whose heart is bent toward evil. No one is trying to take too literally passages in the Bible that speak to man's sinfulness to a point that man is incapable of doing any good, anymore than we think he [Wayne] is trying to overstate passages that speak to a "good" or "perfect" man as being incapable of committing a sin.

The problem arises in failing to use the accurate definition of terms in these passages. As they say, in an argument, the one who defines the terms always wins. When it comes to the Bible, and Masons claiming some sort of contradiction by its accusers, Masonic apologetics often employ the tactic of assigning certain meanings to the biblical language that the original words do not necessarily have. In this instance, Wayne is taking words (good and perfect), and imposes upon them a modern meaning that was not intended in the original text. Then he demands an answer from his accusers to what seems to be an obvious contradiction that refutes their claim.

To illustrate, if I argue for example that Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” But as Wayne argues in his post to you that in Job 1:1, Job is described as “perfect.” Wayne is forcing the word “perfect” in Job 1:1 to mean what most people define it today. Wayne will then insist that since the Bible says Job was “perfect” it refutes the Masonic accusers’ argument that no one is "good." If the word translated “perfect” in Job 1:1 means “absolute perfection,” then Wayne has a point. But if we take a close look at the original word we’ll soon see that the Hebrew and Greek words that are frequently translated “perfect” in our English Bibles do not always mean “perfection.”

In their monumental work, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Harris, Archer, and Waltke addressed specifically the word used in Job 1:1. The Hebrew word tōm, translated in Job 1:1 as perfect, has a number of different usages. The word, or one of its derivatives, is used in Genesis 17:1 where God told Abraham to “be perfect.” And all Israel was instructed to “be perfect” in verses such as Deuteronomy 18:13, 2 Samuel 22:33, and Psalm 101:2,6. After listing these uses in their wordbook, the authors quote the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible as saying, “the words which are rendered in English by ‘perfect’ and ‘perfection’ denoted originally something other and less than ideal perfection” (1980, p. 974). In another authoritative Hebrew word study, Gesenius observed that the word translated as “perfect” can mean “integrity of mind” or “innocence.” He further commented that the word is used of “simplicity of mind, which is opposed to mischief and ill design” (1979, p. 866). Obviously, then, the Hebrew word in Job 1:1 that is translated “perfect” did not mean “sinlessness,” but was used instead to describe a person who was attempting to follow God’s commandments to the best of his or her ability.

Does The Word “Perfect” Really Mean “Perfect”? by Kyle Butt​

Personally, I am not a Bible expert or scholar, and I've never attended seminary. But it seems inexcusable to me for a seminary-trained pastor to imply that a contradiction exists between two Bible passages, and then uses this false contradiction to refute an argument posed by an accuser, when he knows he was trained to use the original meanings of the words in question. His deception is either poor scholarship or the reliance on the credulity of the readers of his posts. Coming from someone who should know better it is dishonest at best. Rather than use the definition of the original word, he deliberately poses what appears to be a contradiction in order to defend the indefensible religion of Freemasonry. Shouldn’t we expect an honest, seminary-trained pastor to use the original meaning of a word when citing Scripture to make a point? But he didn’t do it, why? Because, even though he knew better when he posted it, to win the argument he wants you and his accusers to think of “perfect” in Job 1:1 in the same way we would apply the term today; and "good" in Matthew 12:35 to mean something differently than what Jesus meant when He said in the first place.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Not surprised that you would respond in this manner. In fact, I predicted it would happen, if you recall:

As a faithful Arminian who can tell you most Masons would not fall in the Calvinist camp, I can tell you, that passage will send Masonry's critics into conniptions, and you'd think you committed a venial sin by merely bringing it up. They will try to dodge it, or spin it, or ignore it, but I have never seen any antimasonic critic who ever actually dealt with it as the scripture that it is.

And you have done exactly that, gone into a hyper-literalist tailspin, focusing ONLY on the one word “perfect” that you seem to think is the be-all and end-all of what is said about Job in the Bible. But throughout the book of Job, the same witness of him is consistent despite your claims:

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. (1:1)

“Perfect and UPRIGHT,” or righteous. Going back to the discussion, from which you have taken us far afield, yes, there is such a thing as a “good man.” And Job most certainly was one, he is described as a righteous man throughout the book of Job.

In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly. (1:22)

In all that happened to him, Job SINNED NOT. According to a Calvinist definition, that would not be possible. According to the biblical understanding, though, it most certainly is possible, otherwise it would not be stating that Job did not sin.

And the Lord said unto Satan, have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one who fears God, and shuns evil? And still he holds fast his integrity, although you moved me against him, to destroy him without cause. (2:3)

I think a big part of your error was in failing to take notice that Job is intended as a type of Christ. It is no different than it was with Noah, also a type of Christ. Noah in his day was upright, counter to the wickedness of the rest of the world, and Noah for his uprightness was saved from the calamity that overtook the rest of the world. Did you not even take even the first notice of the fact that God describes him as one of a kind? That God told satan that “there is none like him in the earth?” That satan’s affliction of Job was a type of the temptation of Jesus in the wildnerness?

It presents us with an illustrious type of Christ, the particulars of which we shall endeavour to take notice of as we go along. In general, Job was a great sufferer, was emptied and humbled, but in order to his greater glory. So Christ abased himself, that we might be exalted. The learned bishop Patrick quotes St. Jerome ore than once speaking of Job as a type of Christ, who for the job that was set before him endured the cross, who was persecuted, for a time, by men and devils, and seemed forsaken of God too, but was raised to be an intercessor even for his friends and had added affliction to his misery. When the apostle speaks of the patience of Job he immediately takes notice of the end of the Lord, that is, of the Lord Jesus (as some understand it), typified by Job, James 5:11. (Matthew Henry commentary)

With that being the case, the “perfect and upright” character of Job is intended as a type of the sinless nature of Christ. Yet you would speak contrary to type and have us believe that something less was being typified in regard to Christ? What unbelievable lengths you would go to, that you would forsake biblical truth and deny that there could even be such a thing as a “good man,” just for the sake of trying to appear to refute every single thing any Mason says!

Your entire post has no other design than to denigrate, ostracize, castigate, vilify, demean, and your every comment, from the word go, positively reeks with it. You really need to get your mind and heart up out of the gutter which you have chosen as your abode, and let the truth of the Word be your focus, rather than simply focusing on rebuttal of anything you find me saying. It might rescue you from such errors as this attempt at a one-word exegesis of a 40-chapter book.

A brief look at some errant reads of my post by you:

But it seems inexcusable to me for a seminary-trained pastor to imply that a contradiction exists between two Bible passages

I implied no such thing. Cite from my post where I did if you feel this is the case, so I can speak for myself rather than have you make false inferences about my words. Re-read the comments, and I am sure you will find that the contradiction I was referring to was the inherent contradictions imposed upon the text by those who do not understand it, with you as the prime example of it.

And your efforts to do an end-around on it still does not change the fact that Jesus spoke of the "good man" who "out of the treasure of his heart, brings forth good things."

That's JESUS--NOT ME, MICHAEL--speaking of the "GOOD MAN" doing this. That's JESUS speaking of the "GOOD MAN" that you claim is non-existent.

Wayne is taking words (good and perfect), and imposes upon them a modern meaning that was not intended in the original text.

I did no such thing. If you can't see that "perfect" implies something beyond what is denoted by "good," you need to go back and take some remedial English. It's no different in the original.

You missed the point entirely. MY point was, here you are making claims that there is no such thing as a "good" man, yet in the book of Job we have someone described with a word that is even further beyond that, i.e. "perfect."

And it's more than noticeable that you stray from any mainstream commentary in dererence to some obscure source that you think backs up your claim. None of which, of course, takes us any farther away from the main point being examined. You can't use Mark 10:18, which is speaking in terms of ultimate goodness and its source, to refute the fact that Jesus Himself acknowledges the existence of the "good man," not merely hypothetically, but in reality, defining him as "one who out of the good treasure of his heart, brings forth good things."

Job clearly was such a man, Noah was another, and there are others, Scripture is abundant with them.

 

[Thad]

Hey Wayne,

Glad to see your original avatar returned to its rightful position. It suits you!