Blog | Reproach of Men

Eternal Security

This is probably more a gripe than anything else. It pertains to something I see over and over again with those who reject some very provable Scriptural doctrines, even though the proof of those doctrines is overwhelming in Scripture.

Why do they reject those doctrines?

Because some who adhere to those doctrines failed utterly. Yes indeed, because some person, or several persons did not continue to live in a way that is proper and godly, they rejected the doctrines those persons held as being false.

Now, it should be no surprise that the doctrine most commonly attacked is the doctrine of Eternal Security.

Why?

Because someone might actually make it to Heaven without having to live more righteous than the Pharisees. (No, that’s not a cheap shot either. It is literally the way virtually all those who reject the doctrine of Eternal Security think.)

It is irrelevant to those who oppose Eternal Security that the following passages are in the Scripture, and are directly opposed to their “pet” verses:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (John 10:26-28)

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (II Corinthians 5:17)

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (I John 3:9)

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. (Jeremiah 13:23)

The ONLY way to go from being and doing evil, to being and doing good is to be BORN AGAIN.

Like the verse in Jeremiah makes plain, if the leopard could change its spots, or the black man his skin, then any one of us could become good without being born again. No, it is not possible for the leopard to change its spots or any of us to change the color of our skin — because we are born that way.

The new birth in Christ is SPIRITUAL, not PHYSICAL.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:6-7)

Nonetheless, these folks insist on using verses that are yanked out of context, conditional, or have unclear application, and refuse to consider those verses that are absolute concerning the eternal security of the believer. No, they plainly choose to use the false professors of Christ to invalidate one of the most strongly supported doctrines in all of Scripture.

It is very much like taking the ignominious end of LTC “Bud” Holland and his dumping a B-52H into the ground at low level, and judging the airworthiness of the B-52 design by LTC Holland’s failure and lack of judgement.

Of course, let them keep the law, and let those who believe the doctrine of Eternal Security is heresy begin by keeping the very first law of all:

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:35-40)

Notice what the Lord stated:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.

Notice He stated very plainly ALL, not some, not most, and not even most of the time, or when you are awake. NO, HE SAID ALL, AND HE MEANS ALL THE BODY, ALL THE SOUL, ALL THE SPIRIT, ALL THE TIME.

Love the LORD thy God, with all your being: body, soul, and spirit, all the time, no exceptions. If you err in the slightest, even a smidgen, then you die.

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4)

Anyone who entertains the idea that they can do that on this earth, is a fool. They do not understand righteousness at all, and they are attempting to drag the LORD God down to their level.

And if they think they can be born again through Christ, and then maintain it by their “holy living,” then they need to understand the following:

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Romans 11:5-6)

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:2-3)

Works are anything you do that you believe to be a quid pro quo arrangement with God. In plain English, if you think that God will keep you saved because you didn’t “walk away” or “live in sin” then that is a quid pro quo arrangement, and it is wicked sin.

Go ahead, try to keep the first commandment — I KNOW YOU CAN’T DO IT.

The real question is:

If you can’t keep the first commandment, what in the world makes you think you can keep any of the rest of them?

If you think you are keeping the first commandment by your “holy living,” then you are as hell bound as you ever were.

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:4-9)

A visit from Ike, a broke car, and other things

This last week has been utterly full, and I have been unable to post. However, I will return to the series on Freemasonry. The post “A Proper Interpretation” was necessary as it was moved by an all too common misinterpretation of Scripture.

I still have a ton of things to do, including getting a young lady’s car back on the road, and clearing a road for a older lady who cannot do it, or afford to hire someone to do it.

Fortunately, Ike spared us any real destruction. It did knock out power for several hours. Where I live fared better than most. Some in the area were without power for three days.

A Proper Interpretation

While looking at a listing of articles on a site this morning I was drawn to the headline “Unconverted Christians” and proceeded to click through and read the piece. Most of the article I could agree with, but there was a glaring error in interpretation of a passage that formed the core of the article. Sadly, this error is not unusual among Christians and particularly those who have extra-church, or para-church ministries. Worse yet, this particular error is even found among some otherwise solid local, New Testament churches. What is the error? I quote Dave Daubenmire:

As we sat around the flickering campfire I used a flashlight to locate a verse in my Bible that had troubled me for some time.

Luke 22:31-32 “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

Whoa…..Peter, who had been one of the Lord’s closest disciples, was NOT CONVERTED. For three years he had been part of Jesus’ team, one of his confidants, a follower of the Lord, yet somehow Jesus knew that this loud mouthed blow-hard was more bark than bite. ((Unconverted Christians))

Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon interpretation of the passage and not an uncommon view of the apostle Peter. Granted, Simon Peter said and did some things that were, well — ignorant and prideful are words that come to mind. However, I learned long ago that when looking at the faults of others, the operative phrase to keep firmly in mind is: “There but for the grace of God go I.” We need to be very careful how we characterize someone else and their mistakes, frailties and flaws. Otherwise, we are likely to find ourselves doing the very same things we saw as grave character flaws in them. Kind of like using the phrase “yet somehow Jesus knew” when a proper understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ gives us to know with certainty that He is Almighty God in the flesh and thus knows everything.

Yet, the thrust of this article is not the mis-characterization of Peter, but of the misinterpretation of the word “converted” and how to properly understand the Scripture so that doesn’t happen. And yes, I am quite aware that I also can misinterpret Scripture unless I allow the LORD to lead and guide, and follow the rules He laid down in His word. With that, let us plunge in.

There is a fundamental error here that consists simply of taking our understanding of the common meaning for “converted” and applying it without checking the rest of Scripture. It is a deadly and dangerous error to commit when determining the meaning of Scripture as it will, sooner rather than later, yield very bad doctrine.

The evidence of the error in interpretation is found in the gospels and is supported by the rest of Scripture. Prior to this incident, there is considerable proof that Peter knew the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and was already “converted” in the sense Dave Daubenmire and many others mean it. We can begin looking at the proof in Matthew, chapter 16:

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 16:13-17)

And again in John, chapter six:

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (John 6:66-69)

Both of these incidents are prior to the foretelling of Peter’s denial at the last Passover the Lord held with his disciples, and the subsequent denial of Christ by Peter. Moreover, as additional evidence we have Peter’s behavior when the Lord chose him to be an apostle:

And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets. And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men. And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him. (Luke 5:1-11)

Simon Peter’s reaction to recognizing who was standing in his ship is consistent with the reaction we see from other men of God throughout the Old Testament, men such as Job (Job 40:1-5; 42:1-6), Isaiah (Isaiah 6:5), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:28; 3:22-23). Moreover. Peter’s recognition of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God is fully consistent with Nathanael’s recognition of who Jesus is in John, chapter one:

The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. (John 1:43-49)

Peter’s recognition is inconsistent with the reaction of those who do not know the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. This is evidenced by the following incidents:

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. (John 9:35-38)

The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. (John 4:17-26)

And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one. (John 10:22-30)

These are only three of many incidents recorded in the gospels where individuals stood face to face with the Lord Jesus Christ, and even saw Him perform miracles that are impossible in the physical realm, and yet could not recognize who He is.

Peter knew the Lord because he had already been born again of the Holy Ghost and was in Christ. He knew because the Holy Ghost that indwelt him confirmed to him that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God. It is an error to say otherwise. We must understand that the Holy Ghost has always indwelt believers from the time of the Fall and whoever was first saved, until now. This indwelling will continue until the last saved person on earth passes away and the earth is no more. It is also necessary to understand the distinction between the indwelling of the Holy Ghost and the empowerment of the Holy Ghost which occurred at Pentecost. (Ref. John 7:39, it has much to do with the authority to preach the gospel — Prov. 11:30; 18:4)

Thus the problem here is one of applying our “common” understanding to words in Scripture without confirming that those words actually mean what we think they mean as confirmed by the rest of Scripture.

To say that Peter was not born-again when he erred in denying the Lord Jesus, is to say that the child of God cannot make mistakes, even egregious ones, after they are saved. However, we know from the Old Testament that is simply not true. Many of the Old Testament children of God (born-again in Christ) made some very bad errors. The difference here is the repentance they demonstrated after they where confronted with their sin. Peter’s problem was his brashness in not recognizing how frail we really are when it comes to withstanding the assault of the Devil. Peter did not believe this thing about himself, and the Lord proved him wrong. This is really no different than when the LORD confronted Sarah about her laughing within herself about having a child in her old age (Genesis 18:9-15)

Now, it is manifestly true that many claim Christ today who are not born-again and they do not know the LORD and are not known of the LORD. That is to their detriment. The truest indicator of whether someone knows the LORD is what is given in John, chapter 10:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. (John 10:1-5)

Hence, we can ask the question of someone who misinterprets Scripture as well: Can you hear the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Word, in the Scripture?

Can you hear the voice of the Word, who became Jesus the Christ, in the Old Testament? After all, He speaks as plain as day throughout the Old Testament. Sadly, without “words of Christ in red” many have no clue when the Lord Jesus Christ is speaking. Hence, they are not His.

Whether or not we desire to challenge individuals who claim Christ, and claim to be born again, yet show no evidence of it, we are not free to take a passage and a word and misinterpret it and thus misapply it to prove our point. What that does is invalidate the point we wish to make, and calls into question our own walk with the LORD.

Is there a proper interpretation of the passage? Yes, and it is utterly simple:

What the Lord simply meant was, when Peter got turned around back to the right way (after being sifted and failing), strengthen the brethren. After all, the first and plainest meaning of “converted” is “being turned” or “having been turned.” Did it sting and burn Peter that he had failed when he denied his Lord and Saviour? Yes, it did, and it was very humbling. It is a lesson we can all take heed to.

Engaging Freemasonry — Pt. IV

Before continuing on, it is essential that a term be defined in as much as it can be defined. That term is the word “religion.” The really sad part of trying to define religion is that virtually everyone’s definition of what “religion” is, fails. Hence, this has to be approached from a strictly Scriptural point of view, with the attendant explanation of why men have not been able to define “religion.” Last of all, for the question that must be addressed concerning Freemasonry and its relationship to religion (whether it is a religion, or merely a very good friend to it) is: Can a religion include different or diverse religions in its particulars and still be a religion in its own right?

In Scripture, the statement is made:

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:26-27)

The rest of the references made to religion in the Scripture only refer to someone’s religion, but describe nothing about what religion is. However, it is indisputable that an integral and primary part of religion is worship, and that that worship has certain confines, or restrictions placed upon it, whether narrow or broad. The Scripture does discuss worship, and even defines it for us. One of the first instances where worship is clearly defined is the instance where Abraham’s servant went to find a wife for Isaac. Upon having his request granted by the LORD God, Abraham’s servant did the following:

And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the LORD. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the LORD led me to the house of my master’s brethren. (Genesis 24:26-27)

Thus, the simple act of prayer is worship, and is a primary element of religion. The second thing we can note about religion is that it self-evidently has a defined set of beliefs, irrespective of whether those beliefs are logical, sensible, reasonable, or even beneficial. The defining aspect of those beliefs relate specifically to the spiritual, its existence, or non-existence, and thus the existence of any spiritual higher power. However broad one may think this definition is, it nonetheless is necessary as one can even make a religion out of such a mundane thing as cutting the grass.

Moreover, religion also has the elements of rite and ritual in some degree. The rites and rituals of a religion may only be a single thing, simplistic in its form, or it may a multitude of things, and very complicated in form. In some instances rites and rituals are used as a means of justification before the higher power(s) of that religion. In others, the rituals and rites are simply a means of illustration of certain truths that the adherents of that religion are to be reinforced in as often as they are performed. The latter was the case throughout the Old Testament as illustrated in the following passage:

Give unto the LORD, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the LORD glory and strength. Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. (I Chronicles 16:28-29)

The bringing of an offering before the LORD was a picture of Christ to come, and was a teaching that the LORD God wanted illustrated continually. Failure to do so was indicative that one did not follow the LORD, but was bent upon their own way. In case it is not understood that the sacrifices and offerings were not efficacious for salvation the Scripture does provide the following as proof:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:1-10)

And from the Old Testament:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. (Jeremiah 7:21-23)

Hence, though rituals and rites were a part of the worship in ancient Israel, they were not necessary for salvation. In contrast, in the Catholic Church the ritual of Mass is necessary for the salvation they promise. By this contrast, we can see the varied purpose of rites and rituals and the fact that it is not necessary for a rite or ritual be specifically meant for salvation for it to be an essential part of whatsoever religion that incorporates it. In short, a religion may promise some sort of salvation or justification (and most do), but some of the elements of that religion may not be expressly necessary for the promised salvation to be effected.

So we now see that prayer, a defined set of beliefs (particularly relating to the spiritual), and some rites and/or rituals are all parts of what define a religion. We could say at this point that any system that incorporates these specific elements is a religion. However, for the purposes of this discussion relating to Freemasonry, there is a necessity to answer a final question:

Can a religion incorporate other religions, and still be a religion in its own right?

To say the least it is an interesting question. However, it does have an answer, and that answer is more obvious than most would care to admit. For the answer we must turn to two different systems of belief: Unitarian Universalism, and non-secular Humanism.

I will begin with Unitarian Universalism and its answers to questions that are commonly raised.

Does the UUA have a creed?
No. Although the bylaws of the association do contain a section on purposes and principles, it is not a statement of a religious creed.

Do you subscribe to any doctrines?
We have no specific doctrines to which members are expected to subscribe. However, the bylaws of the UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association) and member churches and societies do contain a Statement of Purpose and Principles (see page 18). These are the basis of a solemn agreement that member churches will support the UUA and that the UUA will support the individual churches.

What do you NOT believe?
We do not believe that any religious precept or doctrine must be accepted as true simply because some religious organization, tradition or authority says it is. Neither do we believe that all UUs should have identical beliefs.

Do some UUs have different beliefs than other UUs?
They certainly do. Since individual freedom of belief is one of our basic principles, it follows that there will be differing beliefs among us. Found in today’s churches are humanism, agnosticism, atheism, theism, liberal Christianity, neo-paganism and earth spiritualism. These beliefs are not mutually exclusive–it’s possible to hold more than one. While we are bound by a set of common principles, we leave it to the individual to decide what particular beliefs lead to those principles.

Do you believe in God?
We do not have a defined doctrine of God. Members are free to develop individual concepts of God that are meaningful to them. They are also free to reject the term and concept altogether.

Most of us do not believe in a supernatural, supreme being who can directly intervene in and alter human life or the mechanism of the natural world. Many believe in a spirit of life or a power within themselves, which some choose to call God.

What are the bonds that unify UUs?
While there are no written or verbal doctrines designed for that purpose, we have both stated and unstated bonds which unify us. The stated bonds are the Principles and Purposes of the UUA which we support individually and collectively.

Among the unstated bonds are our mutual respect for each other and our appreciation of the many religious, philosophical and spiritual paths which our members pursue. We are bound together in our mutual concern for one another’s well being, and our willingness to aid each other in time of need. ((UU Church of Nashua, NH., 100 Questions: Chapter 1 – Beliefs, Creeds and Doctrines))

To be continued . . .

Engaging Freemasonry — Pt. III

There are those who have argued that Freemasonry is anti-religion. However, this is largely (but not totally) confined to the Catholic Church. This charge the Freemasons dispute strongly. I would have to agree with the Freemasons that Freemasonry is not anti-religion or anti-religious. In fact, Freemasonry is a very good friend to religion, and encourages religion to an extent that many churches do not. In the writings of the major proponents of Freemasonry, it is very clear that they seek to encourage religion as they believe it makes a man a better Mason, and a better citizen. ((Messages for a Mission, Freemasonry and Religion-Friends or Foes?, Henry C. Clausen, The Supreme Council, 1977, ISBN 77-78489. The use of excerpts from this article are in accordance with the “Fair use” provision of the Copyright Act.)) Additionally, it is plain in all the rites and rituals, that religion figures prominently in Freemasonry.

However, it is incumbent upon us to realize that religion, and truly being in fellowship with the LORD God are not the same. In fact, one can be, and the vast majority are, quite religious and involved in religion, yet have no fellowship with the LORD God at all. There are some significant examples of this in Scripture that we would do well to pay heed to.

And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Luke 11:37-42)

Now, we must remember that these are the very same people the Lord Jesus referenced in His sermon on the mount at the beginning of His ministry. In this dissertation the Lord plainly stated that the Pharisees possessed a certain righteousness, but that righteousness was not sufficient to enter into the kingdom of heaven:

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:20)

Thus, as religious as the Pharisees were, they had not sufficient righteousness to enter into the presence of the LORD God as that would require a righteousness that exceeded theirs. This clearly meant that they, as religious as they were, had no personal fellowship with the LORD God. This also the Lord Jesus made plain while preaching on the mount:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)

The logic of this statement the Lord made plain immediately prior to that when he stated:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The problem the Lord highlights here is one that many have when it comes to understanding how to please the LORD God and be obedient. They think that “good works” are what will justify them before Almighty God, and all they really need is to have more “good” works than “bad” works. However, the reality is there is only one work that one can do which will please the LORD. It is given in the following statement by the Lord Jesus Christ:

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (John 6:28-29)

This draws a definitive distinction between religion and what the LORD God actually requires of man. In religion there are rites, rituals and dogma, with the LORD those were never required ((The fact that salvation has always been the same is explained to the post A Departure: Pt. III. It should not be necessary to repeat here the extensive evidence in Scripture of this fact. Additionally, the evidence that the LORD God has always required man to “Repent and believe the gospel” is found in the article What does God Require of Us?)) to be justified before Him. No, what the LORD God requires of all men is a personal relationship available only through reconciliation by the blood atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. This reinforced in Scripture extensively, and that contrast with religion is crystal clear in the following passage:

Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. (Galatians 4:8-11)

Now, is that to say that all religion is worthless? No, not quite. The Scripture does clarify that there is one, and only one religion that is undefiled in the sight of the LORD:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

Which is to say no more or less than what the Lord Jesus Christ answered to the lawyer who asked what the great commandment in the law was:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)

And is confirmed again in the epistle to the Romans:

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)

Now, what religion and all its attendant “good works” are woefully deficient in are not the supposed “love” of visiting the fatherless and widows. Rather, it is the love of God and the keeping of oneself unspotted from the world. Like the scribes and Pharisees of the time of Christ, the works that are done in religion are primarily done for the edification of self and justification before God, without any understanding that the first and foremost thing God requires of man is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as only Lord and Saviour. Hence, religions fail in the love of God, and can never please Him. This also the Lord Jesus Christ made clear:

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. (John 14:23-24)

And again from I John:

And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (I John 3:22-24)

Knowing these things then, I must ask:

What is the point of religion when I have (which I do), or can have (which anyone can) a personal, one on one relationship with the LORD God of heaven and earth? Moreover, when the LORD God dwells within me, who or what group or organization can make me any better a person than He can?

Thus, though Freemasonry is indeed a friend to religion, it is a friend to an utterly worthless exercise in self-justification that cannot please the LORD God, and cannot gain one entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

To be continued . . .

Chrome

I don’t usually write evaluations about software that I use, but I am going to make an exception as this piece of software is, well, unusual in the way it was done. Last week, Google released the Beta version of its new browser, Chrome. Since I do web design, I wanted to see how it rendered a page, and see if what Google promised for robustness was actually true.

I downloaded Chrome using Google’s download manager, which I really didn’t care for, and installed Chrome. I then launched Chrome and discovered the Chrome interface to be — utterly minimal. Now, I am austere. I mean everybody that knows me knows that I am not fancy, or a gadgets kind of person. I like the simple, plain, no-frills approach to things. However, this interface is too minimal.

That was only the first of issues that I encountered. I went to look at the Options and found that a utterly minimalist approach was used there to. In short, I, the user, have little to no control in the way this browser is set up. I cannot tell it how to handle individual websites, I can’t pick and choose content on individual sites and how that content is handled. I can’t set varying levels of security for different sites, etc. etc. Moreover, if I can, it is not readily apparent just how to do that. On top of that, I cannot even control how a file is handled after it is downloaded. Yes, I know that the supposed option is there, but it is all grayed out and not selectable, and I can’t find where to change it easily.

I suspect that I am not the only person that is unhappy with this particular browser. After all, my son called me late last week and asked what I thought of Chrome. I told him and he echoed my sentiments. The only thing Chrome gives me that I don’t have elsewhere is a view of how much memory a particular website is using. Yes, I know that Chrome is supposed to be multi-process, where each tab runs a separate process. But in view of the total lack of control and utterly minimalist interface, I really don’t need the multi-process feature that much. After all, If the browser crashes, I’ll just relaunch it. If a site is that poorly coded, I really don’t care to be there anyway.

Will I like Chrome in the future? It depends totally upon whether Google improves the interface, and adds some meaningful user control.

Engaging Freemasonry — Pt. II

One of the most striking aspects of Freemasonry are the religious features of all its rites, rituals and creeds. Thus is was somewhat surprising to see an article in the book, Messages for a Mission, by Henry C. Clausen, 33rd Degree, of the Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World), titled Freemasonry and Religion – Friends or Foes? ((Messages for a Mission, Henry C. Clausen, The Supreme Council, 1977, ISBN 77-78489. The use of excerpts from this article are in accordance with the “Fair use” provision of the Copyright Act.)) The article begins with the statement:

FROM time to time there have been published abrasive pamphlets arguing that Freemasonry is hostile to religion or that its teachings are anti-Christian. Initially it should be observed that the authors of such charges seemingly never are Masons and yet they purport to reveal its “secrets.” Since they could not know the definitive Masonic truths or teachings, their authenticity is destroyed at the very start. If they are renegades or have received material from renegade informers, then so much the worse.

There are a number of things to address here, but a couple of things stand out as requiring immediate attention before continuing with any other issues. The specific statements are:

Initially it should be observed that the authors of such charges seemingly never are Masons and yet they purport to reveal its “secrets.”

And:

Since they could not know the definitive Masonic truths or teachings, their authenticity is destroyed at the very start. If they are renegades or have received material from renegade informers, then so much the worse.

Now, since when has any member of an organization, who is in good standing with that organization, ever been harshly critical of the organization they are part of? Not to be flippant, but the fingers of one hand suffice to count them. In short, Masons who are in good standing are never going to point out the defects of Freemasonry, no matter what they are. Why? Because that is unmasonic conduct and it will get them removed. Hence, Mr. Clausen’s statement becomes automatically true. Moreover, one who is outside Freemasonry is never going to be allowed to see everything in Freemasonry to make any sort of objective judgement. Thus, Mr. Clausen’s statement is axiomatically true again.

What we have here is the setup for a straw man argument, which is completed with the following statement as quoted above:

Since they could not know the definitive Masonic truths or teachings, their authenticity is destroyed at the very start. If they are renegades or have received material from renegade informers, then so much the worse.

No Mr. Clausen, only the straw man is destroyed. The fact remains that either the rites and rituals reflect the teaching given in the various books of Freemasonry, or they are something else altogether different. The problem here is that they are not “altogether different” or even different at all. Why? Strictly due to other statements made by Mr. Clausen in the same article:

The so-called revival of Freemasonry in 1717 and Anderson̓s Constitution of 1723 reinforced these new freedoms. The document may be called a Masonic religious Magna Carta. Like-minded men, other than operative masons, were admitted as Speculative Masons. They brought speculative thought with them, and thus there evolved a severence from the dogma of any one church, sect, or creed. There was independence and yet dependence, for faith and trust in God was indispensable. Under that belief, reflected in a Holy Bible upon the altar, and in the Brotherhood of Man and in his capacity for improvement, Freemasonry unites all men. They still may retain their own particular theological dogmas and forms of worship.

There is nothing said in what Mr. Clausen argues that contradicts what Mr. Beasley told me, and what I have read in the Masonic books in my possession. Hence, the charge,

Since they could not know the definitive Masonic truths or teachings, their authenticity is destroyed at the very start. If they are renegades or have received material from renegade informers, then so much the worse.

is simply a straw man to cause one to question the things quoted from Masonic books as being factually true. The reason this is done, is the very same reason they are so secretive about the rites and rituals — the vast majority of individuals in society would find the rites and rituals evil, repulsive, and abhorrent. When the statements and teachings contained in Freemasonry’s books are brought to light and compared with the Scripture rightly divided, they are found to be actually anti-Christian and utterly condemning of the fraternity. In this, Freemasonry is no different from the Mormon religion and all its secret rites and rituals.

Last of all, questions must be raised concerning a statement made by Mr. Clausen, which is a standard Masonic teaching. To wit:

Under that belief, reflected in a Holy Bible upon the altar, and in the Brotherhood of Man and in his capacity for improvement, Freemasonry unites all men. They still may retain their own particular theological dogmas and forms of worship.

Upon that statement I must ask:

Where is it in Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is Almighty God, allows for worship of Himself in whatever way men happen to think appropriate?

Where is it in Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ is defined in any other way than Almighty God, and God manifest in the flesh?

Where is it in Scripture that salvation is found in anything, or anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ?

You see, believing in “God” however one chooses to define him, is not sufficient for fellowship, or for reconciliation with the LORD:

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (James 2:19)

So it is that Freemasonry deliberately chooses not to define the truth, and as will be seen, actually works to obscure the simple truth of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone. However, the most interesting statement of all comes at the end of the article, and is an admission of what Freemasonry and Freemasons strenuously deny:

Its truths and teachings are not the exclusive property of any church. On the contrary, Masonry is additive to any religion or theology. We are sure that its immense popularity and strength will continue and grow with an ever-abiding belief in God and “that religion in which all men agree leaving their particular opinions to themselves.”

In case it was missed, Mr. Clausen admits that Freemasonry is:

“that religion in which all men agree leaving their particular opinions to themselves.”

To be continued . . .

Blog Issues

Of late I have had some issues with the comments and how comments are handled by the blog. Out of the blue I found comments on older posts turned off, comment moderation turned on for all posts, and “login prior to comment” turned on.

In researching the issue, I found this to be not unusual and related to one of the plugins interacting with the theme. I manually turned comment moderation off and opened up the comments again (no login required), but will have to tweak the MySQL database to fix the “comments off” issue. Then I am going to have to find out which plugin is affecting the theme.

However, it is not all a bad thing as I need to make the blog theme more closely match the theme of the rest of the website. This would also include upgrading the theme to work with the updated versions of WordPress.

Engaging Freemasonry

Recently, I had the opportunity to minister to an elderly man who had been in Freemasonry for about half of his adult life. He was a 32^nd degree Mason and was still looking for the answer that Freemasonry promised him. He had yet to find it.

When I dealt with him, I found him to be very intelligent, inquisitive and driven to learn. In fact, of all the traits he possessed, the love of learning was to me the most outstanding. I began to minister to him because his oldest daughter was gravely concerned for his destiny when he passed away. She saw no evidence that he had ever come to understand the Gospel, or that he knew the Lord Jesus Christ personally. I agreed to do a study with him, even though I really did not know what Freemasonry taught, or what it’s goals are. It proved to be interesting.

Out of that ministry to Sidney Max Beasley, Mr. Beasley ultimately ended up rejecting Freemasonry and the Freemason funeral rites. Now, the work is not mine as the LORD used a number of individuals over the years to minister to Mr. Beasley. However, apparently what Mr. Beasley lacked was the understanding of the fact that the truth is exclusive (meaning it necessarily excludes all things that are not true) and that two significant things are declared concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. The first thing Jesus declares about Himself, and the second was revealed by the Holy Ghost to the apostle Paul, for the benefit of us all:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:1-3)

It is a fact that in Jesus Christ and in Him alone resides the truth, and that it is a single truth that has many facets. Moreover, there is no other truth, and that all other claims to the truth are false, no matter how “true” they may appear to be. As a part of this, is a fact that all, not some or most, but all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in the Lord Jesus Christ. If he is the truth, then it does necessarily follow that he is all the truth, and that all knowledge, all wisdom and all understanding are hid in Him.

Hence, there is no other place to look for answers — no matter what the question.

Now the revelation of this to Mr. Beasley followed on the heels of being shown that Freemasonry cannot possibly know the truth as they steadfastly refuse to say which religion or denomination is right, or even the most correct. How can it be that all religions that confess “God” are accepted equally and are equally valid when there is such variance in what they teach, even to the point of being diametrically opposed? Moreover, Freemasonry claims that they will make a better man out of anyone who joins the fraternity and follows the dogma, rituals and rites. However, that raised another question:

How can an earthly organization of any sort make a better person out of someone if that organization refuses to accurately identify the truth, and instead opts to present a mishmash of religious teachings from different religions that don’t even agree in their basic tenets?

Added to that is yet another question:

How can anyone improve upon what the LORD God does when he changes a person at salvation, and then continues to work in their life to conform them to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ? Can you really claim to outdo the LORD God and His ability to change a person’s life and morals, especially since the LORD God made man in the image of Himself and knows more about how we tick than anyone else?

Mr. Beasley had no answers to the above questions. I was not surprised. Moreover, my lack of surprise was confirmed after he passed away and I purchased virtually his entire library of Masonic books. The reason he had no answers is due to the fact that Freemasonry cannot answer those questions, and it cannot answer the basic question the LORD God would ask of anyone who is not born-again in Christ Jesus:

How, and in what way, are you as righteous as the LORD God?

With that question left hanging (and I am going to let it hang), let us then proceed to examine what Freemasons state about Freemasonry, its teachings and purpose. After all, there is no more valid testimony as to what a person or organization believes than their own words properly and rightfully cited in context. This I will ever endeavor to accomplish in every article addressing any topic, not just Freemasonry.

To be continued . . .

Lessons Learned

No, this is not about something expressly Scriptural or Biblical. However, if you want, you could take some serious spiritual application from it.

I started designing (I’ll use the term loosely here) web pages about four years ago. I launched the Reproach of Men site a little over three years ago after tinkering with HTML code for quite some time and produced a set of pages that passed for a site. It was all based on tables and more effort was expended in writing the introductions than in actually insuring the code was acceptable and usable by all the major browsers.

At the time, I thought it was rather neat that a page could be “elastic” and “liquid” to whatever width of monitor the user happened to have. Moreover, I thought that using different colors for different pages would be good as well. Ahh yes, a whole new way to be “creative” and still be plain enough to not be outlandish.

Live and learn.

You know, we are designed by the LORD God to function a certain way, and any other way, no matter how neat it may appear to be initially, simply does not work very well, if at all. A case in point is the ability to make a screen “liquid” to where it stretches to the limits of any monitor or browser window. The idea is great if you have tons of bandwidth and large graphics, or you really don’t mind endlessly long lines. However, our eyes do not like endlessly long lines, and dial-up (which a significant portion of our population still uses) cannot handle large files. Hence, two very significant limitations on page elasticity. The worst part is that I really don’t care for fixed-width, narrow screens. However, after having to deal with the vagaries of IE6, I was forced to concede to fixed-width for IE6 only, as IE6 and below do not handle liquid very well at all. But, in so doing, I discovered that the narrower width window was actually easier to focus on and read. Something about setting a page in the middle of the screen, contrasting it with a background, and an appropriate (proportional) text size, made the article much easier to read.

Hmmm.

Well, I’m not stupid, and the whole idea is to get people to read the articles and learn. Hence, change all the articles to a maximum width of 800 pixels and define the page to the center of the window. Funny how it is so much easier to read. IE6 is still fixed width and the standards-compliant browsers get a liquid page from 400 to 800 pixels wide.

Since I also desire to have a page that is attractive and focuses the eye, I learned that there needs to be distinction in the layout. Using one solid color for the entire page really kills the eye and makes it harder to concentrate and focus on the separate areas of the page. Hence, a breakup of the page into functional areas is required to allow the eye to differentiate between those areas, and more effectively focus on a specific portion of the page. The requirements I had for my site were not to difficult:

The colors could not clash.
The colors could not be loud.
The colors had to reflect the simplicity of the Gospel message.
The distinction between the colors had to be sufficient to be clearly defining to the eye.

Hence, the colors are pastels, and somewhat contrasting, and thin lines are used to help complete the definition. Also, the colors are all “naturals” meaning they are “comfortable” to view. Moreover, all the different topical pages are laid out the same with the same colors and theme, with the exception of the articles section. This also is a result of considerable learning about how we are when it comes to change.

Funny thing, we seem to like the variety, but variety from one page to the next in a website does not make for ease of use. Moreover, it does not inspire trust in the stability of the designer. I also limited the page width to 1200 pixels. So much for how I started out with the Reproach of Men site.

I consider it “lessons learned.”