Truth Magazine

By Bob Buchanon

In the United States, there are a reported eight hundred or more different secret societies. Multitudes of the most influential people are members of these secret orders. The membership includes hosts of church members and many preachers. A great many men that I know and love, including members of my own family, are members of lodges.

When the subject of secret societies is dealt with, the question is often raised: “Is Freemasonry and other secret societies a religion?” The average Mason will answer, “No.” A mis-informed Mason once wrote: “The lodge and the church occupy two wholly different spheres, and things that are not alike cannot be compared. The church is of the Lord from heaven, the lodge is of human origin. The church ministers primarily to the soul, the lodge to the body” (The Discerner, Vol. V-No. 1, January 1965). It would be well if that statement were true, but it is completely erroneous. If the lodge were merely a fraternal organization seeking to benefit its members and limiting its activities to the non-religious areas of life, then the matter might be viewed in a different light altogether. While there still would be many objections to the lodge, if it left religion out, the opposition would find a different line of argument.

Men have always formed social groups and clubs. There are many fine civic organizations (Rotary, Lions, Kiwanis, etc.) that are right in themselves. A faithful Christian may belong to any one of these for civic reasons. But there is this group of secret societies that most definitely classify as sinful for Christians to have part in.

The lodges claim to be centers of morality, claim to give great light on spiritual things, claim to make you a better citizen, and by many are claimed to be great aids to Christianity. The lodges themselves often profess to show the way to heaven. They speak much about God, have Bibles as lodge furniture in many countries, and call their building “temples.”

The purpose of this article is to present factually that there is a very definite religious aspect to Masonry. The most authoritative spokesman of the lodge points out again and again that the lodge has a religious base. The words of Paul to the Athenians fit very well when applied to the Masonic Lodge, “. . . in all things I perceive that ye are very religious” (Acts 17:22).

No Secret Work

The appeal of Masonry is the secrecy of the order. Secrets are to be kept from all people, even their wives. The mason may tell her something about the dates of their meetings, a picnic or a party, but he is not allowed to tell her about the “work” of Masonry. Some people seem to think that just because the lodge is a secret order that its teachings are not known. Some have argued that it is impossible to know anything about Masonry without being a member.. This is a mistaken conception. I know exactly what the lodge is and what it stands for. This can be known by anyone who is willing to inquire.

Masons have been led to believe that no secret work is in print. According to them nothing is written. The only way, they have been told, for anyone to have a knowledge of the secret work of Masonry is to have another Mason tell them something about it and the only way another Mason will tell another is for that other one to become a Mason. I have over 40 books on my shelves that deal with Masonry. Included in these books are the official monitors for Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, and Indiana; 2 sets of Encyclopedia of Freemasonry by Albert Mackey, a 320 Mason; Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike (this work was prepared for the Supreme Council of the 320 for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States and published by its authority); and Duncan’s Masonic Ritual and Monitor. Some Masonic friends have been stunned to see that I have these. They are surprised to find that the books contain the secret work – word for word, step by step. Do you remember, Masonic friends, when you were sitting in the car late at night having some Master Mason teach you these things and emphasize that all of this is so secret and that nothing is in print? It was in print then and is still in print now. Do not ever let anyone tell you that the only way to learn about the secrets of Masonry is to get in the lodge, because that just is not so!

In this article, I shall not assume to speak for Freemasonry – Masonry shall speak for itself. By its own utterances, by its own words, Masonry must stand justified or condemned.

Masonry’s God

To become a Mason one must believe in the existence of a supreme being. The Tennessee Craftsman states: “The foundation on which Freemasonry rests is the belief in and acknowledgment of a Supreme Being” (p. 7). Albert Mackey said, “A belief in the existence of God is an essential point of Speculative Masonry – so essential indeed, that it is a landmark of the Order that no Atheist can be made a Mason” (Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Vol. I, page 301).

No atheist can be made a Mason! But who is an atheist? Albert Pike argues that the “real question is, whether such Qualities exist, as we call God; and not by what particular name we shall designate the Qualities. The name is of the smallest consequence. Real Atheism is the denial of the existence of any God, of the actuality of all possible ideas of God” (Morals and Dogma, p. 644).

Masonry calls their god the G.A.O.T.U. (Great Architect of the Universe). One does not need to believe in the Holy God of the Bible, just believe in “a god.” The reason for this is that Masonry is a universal religion and has members among those who believe in pagan gods. Pike says, “Masonry propagates no creed except its own most simple and sublime one; that universal religion, taught by Nature and Reason. Its Lodges are neither Jewish, Moslem, nor Christian Temples. It reiterates the precepts of morality of all religions” (Morals and Dogma, p. 718).

Suppose a Buddhist is praying in the Masonic Lodge (because Masonry allows the Buddhist to be a member) and prays, “Great Architect of the Universe,” who do you think he has in mind? He is not directing his prayers to Jehovah, for his faith is in Buddha.

A False Religion

Some try to argue that Masonry is just a social institution; another says it is an insurance company; and still another, it is a benevolent organization; and a fourth affirms that it is a religion. If it should prove that the answer to this question must be that it is a religion, then the question arises, “What is the religion of Masonry?” If it is anything but Christianity, the religion of Masonry is necessarily false, for Christianity is the only true religion. And in that case no Christian may have fellowship with Masonry.

The evidence continues to be overwhelming that Freemasonry is a religion. There is no room for any reasonable doubt as to Masonry’s being a religious institution. The lodge promises a new birth, has their own redeemer, and promises that grand celestial Lodge in the sky. Not only do the symbols, rites, temples, altars, songs, and prayers point unmistakably to it as a religion, but a great many Masonic authors emphatically declare it to be just that.

The Entered Apprentice is taught at intiation to invoke “The blessings of Deity . . . because Masonry is a religious institution . . .” (Kentucky Monitor, p. 28).

Under the heading, “Religion of Masonry,” Albert Mackey finds fault with some, whom he calls “more timid brethren,” who deny that Masonry is a religion. He replies, “On the contrary, I contend, without any sort of hesitation, that Masonry is, in every sense of the word, except one, and that its least philosophical, an eminently religious institution -that it is indebted solely to the religious element which it contains from its origin and for its continued existence, and that without this religious element it would scarcely be worthy of cultivation by the wise and good” (Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Vol. 2, p. 618).

Mackey continued by saying, “Look at its ancient landmarks, its sublime ceremonies, its profound symbols and allegories – all inculcating religious doctrine, commanding religious observance, and teaching religious truth, and who can deny that it is eminently a religious institution?” (Ibid). The author concluded the section on religion by saying: “Masonry, then, is, indeed, a religious institution; and on this ground mainly, if not alone, should the religious Mason defend it” (Ibid, p. 619).

This should settle for all time the question as to whether or not Freemasonry is religious. According to its own claims, it is proper to speak of the “religion of Freemasonry.” The man who contends that the Masonic Lodge is not a religious institution is either ignorant of the organization or else he is a willful deceiver! Masonry is religious and it teaches religion.

There is only one true religion. That religion is Christianity. All other religions are false. I need not argue that proposition. No Christian has ever denied it. We are now in a position where we can determine absolutely whether or not the religion of Freemasonry is false or true. Let us return to the writings of the Masons and see what they have to say about it: “But they religion of Masonry is not sectarian. It admits men of every creed within its hospitable bosom, rejecting none and approving none for his peculiar, th. It is not Judaism, though there is nothing in; it to offend a Jew, it is not Christianity, but there is nothing in it repugnant to the faith of a Christian” (Ibid, emphasis mine, bb).

These are not my words! They are the words of Masonry’s own encyclopedia, prepared by one of the greatest Masonic authors. It declares Freemasonry has a religion, and that religion is not Christianity. Let us use a little logic here: If the religion of Freemasonry is not Christianity, then it is false! If the religion of Freemasonry is false, then it is not of God! If the religion of Freemasonry is not of God, then it is of the evil one! Leave it and repent!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 45, pp. 722-723
November 13, 1980

By Donald P. Ames

It has now been nearly 2,000 years since our Lord and Savior was nailed to the cross of Calvary. The account of that tragedy is recorded on the pages of divine writ, as well as His great victory over death. And this event has since become the focal point of the very claims of Christianity.

During the three years of His public ministry prior to His death, Jesus was busy teaching the people the righteousness of God. He performed many mighty works in their midst, bearing abundant testimony that He was indeed the Son of God (Jn. 3:2; 10:25, 37-38). He also rebuked and exposed the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders and their sinful ways. Because of His claims as the Son of God, this soon aroused their wrath, and steps were taken to put Him to death (Jn. 11:47-53).

After several attempts and failures (Jn. 8:59, 10:31), arrangements were made with Judas to betray Jesus (Matt. 26:14-16). This was accomplished in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:47f), and steps were taken to insure the death of Jesus (Matt. 27:1). Since Roman law forbade the Jews to do the actual killing, Jesus was delivered over to Pilate, because “we are not permitted to put any one to death” (Jn. 18:31). Yet, according to their charges, He was 1 to be put to death (Jn. 19:7). When Pilate hesitated, they charged, “If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you” (Jn. 18:30).

According to the usual custom, Pilate sought to release Jesus, finding no guilt in Him (Jn. 18:38), and offered the people a choice between Jesus (who had done much good) and Barabbas (a robber and murderer). But “the chief priests stirred up the multitude to ask him to release Barabas for them instead” (Mk. 15:11), even though it was obvious even to Pilate that they were motivated by envy (Mk. 15:10). And though Pilate made further efforts to release Jesus, “the Jews cried out, saying, `If you release this man, you are no friend to Caesar’ ” (Jn. 19:12). Finally, Pilate sought to wash his hands of the deed that he was about to perform, and the Jews willingly accepted the consequences by stating, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:25). Pilate permitted Jesus to be crucified.

This still was not enough to satisfy the Jews, and they sought guards for the tomb, to have it sealed, “lest the disciples come and steal Him away and say to the people, `He has risen from the dead,’ and the latter deception will be worse than the first” (Matt. 27:64). There was no disputing either their intentions or their actions.

However, Jesus was not bound by the grave,, and in fulfillment of His own prophecies, on the third day He arose from the dead and appeared to many (1 Cor. 15:1-8; Acts 1:3). Motivated with new courage and determination, and guided by the Holy Spirit, the apostles went forth and boldly proclaimed to the Jews, “this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (Acts 2:23). The fact of the resurrection was too abundantly established, and the consequences of such a charge stung (Rom. 1:4). No longer were they so bold and courageous to allow “His blood be upon us.” In fact, many had already had second thoughts when they beheld the events at the death of Jesus (Luke 23:48). Now, Peter’s charge stung even more. The Bible says 3,000 responded to the gospel invitation on that day (Acts 2:41).

From this point forward, a new attitude began taking hold of the Jewish leaders. As the apostles reminded them of the events just a few days previous when “you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, – a fact to which we are witnesses” (Acts 3:14-15), they were no longer willing to accept the blame. In Acts 5:28, they call the apostles to task, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” In Acts 7:52, when Stephen charged, “Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have not become,” they could no longer contain themselves, but “cut to the quick” they began “gnashing their teeth at him” (Acts 7:54), and put him to death.

Since that time, she Jews have been busy seeking to disavow the charge that they were responsible for the death of Jesus. Efforts have been made several times in recent years to produce a Bible that would remove all references to the Jews being responsible for His death. In the Chicago Tribune (8/18/79), a notice appeared that “A Jewish leader in New York says revisions in the 1980 passion play in Oberammagau, Germany, have reduced anti-Semitic references . . . . The play, presented every 10 years, previously indicated that the Jews were to blame for the crucifixion of Jesus.” However “Jewish criticism” and “the spirit of Roman Catholicism’s Second Viatical Council” had prevailed, and that was now going to be changed.

Why would the Jews be concerned about who was to blame? Certainly the blame was not designed to destroy the Jews as a race and a people, for Peter himself said they acted out of “ignorance” (Acts 3:17). Yet, since the glorious news of the resurrection of Christ, the Jews~have not been willing to stand up and boldly state, “Yes, w’e did so! We are right in doing so, and would do so again if such an imposter arose.” Instead, they have sought repeatedly to “get the monkey off their backs.” They have claimed such blame to be “defamation” and “anti-Semitic.” They have sought to have such Bible charges deleted, and now have even had the passion play itself altered to delete all such references. Why?

We do not find similar efforts to remove charges that they killed their enemies when they entered the land of Cancan. We do not find similar efforts to remove charges that they killed other enemies. They do not even seek to deny the actions of Herod in killing off the babies (Matt. 2). But the charge that they were responsible for the death of Jesus is one charge (though formerly eager to accept) they continually seek to repudiate. Whether they accept Him as the Messiah or not (see Acts 4:16), their actions give clear testimony that they have done that which even they now know to be wrong (cf. Herod and John the Baptist, Matt. 15, Mark 6).

But, until the end of time, the charge is still a valid one. It needs to be proclaimed to all Jews. Because of their unbelief, they were broken off as the children of God (Rom. 11:20), and their only hope for salvation is to be willing to accept the conclusion they seek to deny (Rom. 1:4), and by obedience to the gospel be grafted back in (Rom. 11:23; 9:1-5; 10:103). “And thus all Israel will be saved” – in precisely the same way the Gentiles are saved (Rom. 1:16; Heb. 5:9). The facts of history – or of salvation – cannot be altered to suit man’s feelings. And the response of Judaism still today gives tactical admittance to their guilt in the death of the Son of God as well as a grudging admittance to the validity of His claims. Then why not, as did those on Pentecost, repent and obey Him while there is still time!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 44, pp. 714-715
November 6, 1980

By Dick Blackford

The Bible has stood the test of time and persecution, yet it continues to be the best seller year after year. One would think that the world would be in better shape than what it is, since there are so many Bibles in print (some families own several). But that is not the case. There must be some explanation for this seeming inconsistency. One way to find out is to examine the reasons some purchase and/or read the Bible, as well as why it should be read.

I. Some read the Bible just to be able to say they have read it. One is considered to have a well-rounded education if he has a general knowledge of the Bible. In the English departments at most universities, portions of the Bible are required reading, but merely as another piece and style of literature, not as the Word Of God! “A knowledge of the Bible without a college course is more valuable than a college course without a knowledge of the Bible,” (William Lyon Phelps). There is a big difference between the books that men make and the Book that makes men.

Others read the Bible because they know their preacher or pastor is going to ask for a show of hands on Sunday from all the daily Bible readers. Prizes are often awarded to those who read it through. In many cases very little is learned when the Bible is read from this motive. The important thing is not that you went through the Bible, but did the Bible go through you?

Il. Some own a Bible as a status symbol. In spite of the fact that interest in spiritual matters seems to be approaching an all time low for modern society, it is still the “in” thing to display a Bible on the coffee table as a “conversation piece” – provided the conversation is about the beautiful cover and not the contents. It is also “in” for the bride to carry a pretty Bible at her wedding for “good luck.” Lip service is given to the Bible as a good book to live by, but most discussions of it are of a shallow nature (usually to satisfy some curiosity – the answer to which would profit little in many cases). Surely, there is a better reason for owning a Bible than this.

III. Some read the Bible for argument’s sake. Certainly much of the Christian’s life will be spent in controversy if he is truly doing the will of God. However, this is not to be confused with a love for strife. Every person should want to be right about what the Bible teaches, but not for the sake of winning an argument. The mere desire to win an argument is motivated by pride. An haughty, arrogant spirit is condemned in the Scriptures. “Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16:18). Love is not arrogant (1 Cor. 13:4). There are those who would make a game out of Bible knowledge. A church out west sponsors a “Bible Bowl” in which contestants compete against each other for carnal prizes. When our desire to know what the Bible teaches comes from a purely academic interest rather than a desire to go to heaven or to save a soul, then it matters not how great our knowledge may become. An argument never yet answered by an unbeliever is a godly life. It is possible to “win” an argument and lose a soul. Sometimes when great men with much Bible knowledge depart from the faith, it was because their knowledge was purely academic. Their heart was not in it.

IV. Some read the Bible to put something into it. They may read with prejudice, attempting to prove a theory. Some see salvation by faith only in John 3:16. But the idea of “only” is not there. Others see the “rapture” theory in 1 Thess. 4:16-18. They believe the righteous will be raised to meet the Lord while a seven year period of tribulation is occurring on the earth for the unrighteous. But the rapture is not there, the unrighteous are not mentioned, and the seven years is unheard of. John 5:28, 29 ruptures the rapture theory, as do many other Scriptures. Further, there are some who see church contributions to benevolent societies in James 1:27. But neither the church nor the institution can be found in the passage. The Psalmist said “Forever, O Jehovah, thy word is settled in heaven” (Ps. 119:89). Our Lord did not ask us how the Bible should be written. It is presumption on the part of man to try to tell Him how the Bible should read. “For who hath known the mind of the Lord and who hath been his counselor?” (Rom. 11:34).

V. There are those who read the Bible to get something out of it. It is an inexhaustible mine of treasure. It deals with the loftiest and most sublime questions that a man can raise – Where did I come from?, Why am I here?, and Where am I going? It answers the most serious question that could ever cross the mind of a human being, yet it deals with them in simple terms that all can understand. The Bible was not written merely for the critics and philosophers. It touches on a vast number of subjects and covers several thousand years of history, but it is brief when one considers the vast area of subjects with which it deals. It has that ring of genuineness about it (to all fairminded people) that overwhelms the reader with the evidence that its author had the total welfare of its hearer; in mind. When one reads with this attitude, he is sure to find in it a richly rewarding experience. Still, the Bible is the textbook of life, not merely a book of texts.

VI. The best motive for Bible reading is to get to someone – Christ. Concerning the Scriptures, Jesus said “They are they which testify of me” (Jn. 5:39). The Bible is history – His story. The Bereans were commended for they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). They were not reading the Scriptures just to say they had read it or to try to, put something into it. Their interest was not merely in winning arguments or in status symbols, for “many of them believed.” Their interest was more than the curiosity of the Athenian philosophers. They, as the many believers today, regarded it as “the chart of life.” Other books are given for our information, but the Bible was given for our transformation. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul” (Ps. 19:7). “Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word” (Ps. 119:9).

Conclusion

The Bible is not only the world’s best seller; it is man’s best purchase. However, no one is saved by buying a Bible he does not read, nor is one saved by reading a Bible he does not obey.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 44, pp. 713-714
November 6, 1980

By Irven Lee

I am using the word “trifles” to refer to things of little or no value. There are some men who cannot support a family even if they have good salaries and a minimum of health. expenses. In some cases, these men waste their substance in riotous living and on alcohol. Others do not follow after these vices, but they do not have money to buy food and clothing for their children. What do they do with their money? They buy trifles and gadgets which are soon torn up, and then they have nothing, not even trifles, to show for the dollars they have spent. If they buy things of some value they do not know how to care for them, so they are soon in the junk heap. They work hard for nothing.

Is it a mental quirk that causes some to be such failures in the common sense of wise use of their income? Do you remember seeing a man who could not provide for his family on a good income and later learned to spend wisely so that he could have the essential food and clothing? I do not remember seeing such a change. This weakness seems to last a life time. There are men who will not work, but we are thinking of those who get good jobs and hold them but never can have anything but debts.

Purchasers of trifles seem not to worry over their lack of useful things which most people buy as soon as they can after they start a family and home of their own. They like money for themselves so that money is much desired, but not that they might provide for their family. They wish it so that they may spend for selfish fancies and trifles. They covet the money made by other members of their families even though the families are struggling to get food and clothing. A man who will not provide for his own has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel (1 Tim. 5:8). If a man has a mental quirk, he may not be accountable before God. This is as kind a defense as I know.

There are preachers who have moved many times in a few years leaving debts at every place even though their incomes were about the same as the incomes of preachers who had more and kept debts paid. In some cases, friends or churches came to their rescue to clear their debts and save their reputations. This special help seems not to benefit them because the next word you hear is that they owe much more than they can pay. Churches are harmed very much by such preachers.

There are times when a financial crisis in some home is caused by an extravagant wife. It must be that some women have the same lack of appreciation for the essentials and a special desire for the useless things on the market. When either marriage partner is a foolish spender, there can never be a stable family with the joy of ownership. The wise woman of Proverbs 31 was a great asset to her husband and children rather than a hindrance to them.

What about the children of compulsive spenders? Is there such a thing as inheriting this sad weakness? All should assume that their children are normal and teach them to work and earn for themselves. Work, pray, and hope that they will realize that they cannot buy all the trinkets drat are on the market and that there are important things to buy. People without some skill in buying are business failures in life regardless of how intelligent they may be in other ways. A little child does not know what is important, of course, but if one who is approaching the age of maturity does not grow in this wisdom it is time to cry as you consider his future.

The young man who is thinking of marriage should by all means avoid marrying one who could easily spend two salaries on herself. The young women should be very confident that a young man is one who would spend his money for useful things before she gives her consent to marriage. There has not been enough teaching and thinking on this subject. If the young lady marries one who will never get above a child’s level of ability in the matter of providing, she will find a heavy load on her shoulders. She will have to provide for the family and fight for her own earnings even to do that.

The compulsive spender is a money lover and a compulsive borrower. In many cases, he borrows from friends who trust him until he has no friends because he never repays them. Very able preachers often destroy themselves and harm many churches before it becomes so well known that they will leave unpaid bills at every place. One who knows this about a preacher should not recommend him to preach anywhere. It will not help to pay his bills and give him a fresh start because there will soon be many new bills that are beginning to be delinquent.

A man who will not provide needed things for the home and family will likely have little respect for the property of others. If the church provides a good house for such a man who preaches, it may find that the house is something of a wreck a few months after he moves into it. The failure to provide the nicer things in life for his family seems to be tied in with a lack of appreciation for useful and beautiful things. A good wife can fight to train the children to have appreciation for the useful things. In such cases she will fight alone. The man himself may be the chief offender rather than an aid in the proper care of property.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 44, p. 712
November 6, 1980