Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Every week, I am privileged to conduct a call-in radio program on one of the local stations. During the course of an hour, I usually receive eleven to fourteen calls. In a recent program, a lady called to state that the reason she did not attend church service somewhere was because of the hypocrites in the church. During the remainder of the program, a clear one-third of all of the calls which I received pertained to hypocrisy in Christians. Surely, this is indicative of our need to be sure that we are not guilty of hypocrisy.

Defining the Word

What is a hypocrite? In order to answer that question, let us consider the meaning of the Greek words hupokritas and hupokrisis. Surprisingly, in classical Greek these words are rather neutral in meaning; they have neither a good nor bad connotation. The hupokrites in classical Greek was the man who expounded or interpreted. He was also the man who answered another. Because a play is a work which is made up of question and answer, it was not long before the words were used to refer to the ones who participated in the play. Hence, the hupokrites was the actor. From this latter usage, hupokrites developed its bad sense.

Because the actor is one who plays a part, the word came to mean a man who pretends to be what he is not. The art of the actor is that from the moment he dons the mask his whole conduct on stage should be in keeping with his allotted role. In ancient theaters, the actor used a mask to cover his face in order to help him to pretend to be the character whose role he assumed. From the moment he donned the mask, the hupokritts pretended to be someone other than who he really was. Soon, the word hupokrites was used to refer to the man who made human life the stage and his conduct his role. It came to refer to the man who pretended to be righteous when he was wicked.

Examples of Hypocrisy

To further illustrate the meaning of the word hypocrisy and to show God’s attitude toward the hypocrite, let us consider some biblical examples of hypocrisy.

1. Peter (Gal. 2:13). This passage records the conduct of Peter while he was in Antioch. In the early church, Antioch was one of the first congregations to overcome its Jewish background sufficiently to break down the middle wall of partition which separated the Jews and Gentiles. In Antioch, the two groups had fellowship with each other; they ate meals together. When Peter came to Antioch, he joined right in with the two groups. He ate with Gentiles on the same basis as he ate with Jews. Soon, however, some men from the Jerusalem church arrived in Antioch. The Jerusalem Christians apparently still clung to their Jewish heritage. These men would have considered it a sin to eat with a Gentile. Consequently, they would disapprove of what was going on in Antioch. When these men arrived in Antioch, Peter donned his mask; he pretended to be what he was not. Whereas he had been eating with the Gentiles, when the men from Jerusalem arrived he ceased to have anything to do with the Gentiles. Hence, he was playing a part, pretending to be different to what he really was. Consequently, we read this report of what happened in Antioch:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-13).

This example from the New Testament illustrates what a hypocrite is; he is a man who pretends to be something he is not.

2. Matt. 23. Consider the various passages in this chapter which illustrate to us what the hypocrite is. Here is Jesus’ description of the hypocrisy in the Jews; He said:

The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do sad observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them. And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men (vs. 1-5).

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, even while for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you shall receive a greater condemnation (v. 14).

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (v. 23-24).

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also (vs. 25-26).

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness (vs. 27-18).

These passages very well portray the nature of hypocrisy. Like the beautiful mausoleum which is very beautiful on the outside but full of decaying bodies on the inside, the hypocrite puts on a front which is very attractive but inwardly he is full of wickedness.

Hypocrisy Is Still In the Church

There is probably no church which is without hypocrites. I have been in the company of song .leaders who told more ungodly stories than many non-Christians with whom I have associated. Having had the opportunity to know a few Christian businessmen, I have. heard many of them warn me not to do business with other Christians. When asked to tell me why they said that, they began to tell me of one case after another of brethren in the local church who were indebted to them and who refused to even answer their statements of debt. Quite frankly, I would have had a pretty hard time following such a brother when he led the congregation in prayer if he refused to pay his debts and I knew about it.

I have known of men who served the church in various capacities getting involved in immoralities. Rather than having the decency of resigning from the offices which they held or classes which they taught, they preferred to play the hypocrite. Consequently, they manifested this spotless image to the church while wallowing in the immoralities of sin. That, my brethren, is hypocrisy.

We could cite other examples of hypocrisy. The man who pretends to be righteous but who cheats on his income taxes is a hypocrite. The man who portrays the image of a faithful Christian while loafing on the job which he is being paid to perform is a hypocrite.. The man who waits on the Lord’s table but lies when asked about the condition of the car which he is selling is a hypocrite.

Not All Sinners Are Hypocrites

Let me hasten to relate that not all sinners are hypocrites. None of us who claim to be Christians can live a perfect life. Consequently, we are going to be guilty of sin from time to time. The man who, when guilty of sin, falls down on his knees, prays to God for forgiveness, and honestly tries to cease practicing the sin of which he is repenting is not a hypocrite. This man is not trying to put on a cloak of righteousness to cover the wicked conduct in which he is engaged; he is a man who openly admits his guilt and asks God’s forgiveness. The hypocrite is aware of his guilt but has no intention of quitting his sinful conduct. Rather, he only wants to retain the respect of God’s people while following the Devil.

Conclusion

The hypocrite has the ability to hide his devious deeds from the sight of men, at least some men on some occasions. However, he can never conceal his conduct from God. Though the hypocrite might have a good reputation among men, his character is rotten and God knows it. The hypocrite is, therefore, a man who cares more about what men think of him than what God thinks of him.

God has revealed to us that all hypocrites will be exposed. Jesus said,

Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. Accordingly whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops (Lk. 12:1 3).

The hypocrite will be exposed by God at the judgment. At that time, God shall tear away the cloak of righteousness with which the hypocrite hides his wicked heart underneath. Every idle word (Mt. 12:36) and every evil thought (Heb. 4:13) will be exposed for what it is.

Are you ready to stand before the judgment seat of Christ? Only the man who is protected by the blood of Christ can stand before God. Having had his sins washed away, this man is acceptable to God Almighty. The hypocrite, on the other hand, will be cast into Hell. Let us be sure that our righteousness is genuine and not feigned.

Truth Magazine XXII: 17, pp. 275-277
April 27, 1978

By Johnie Edwards

Speaking in tongues is a misunderstood Bible subject. The first occurrence of miraculous tongue-speaking is recorded in Acts 2. Tongue-speaking is very limited in the Bible. In order to have a good Bible understanding of the subject, let me call your attention to some things about tongue-speaking.

(1) Bible Tongue-speaking is associated With the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit in the baptismal measure to only a certain few — the apostles (Jn. 16:13; Acts 1:4). The apostles were the ones who received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:3). As Acts 2:3-4 shows, tongue speaking came with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In the case of Cornelius, the baptism of the Holy Spirit brought about tongue-speaking (Acts 10:44-46). For people today, to miraculously speak in tongues, they must first receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit and this does not occur. Speaking in tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit were never a command, but a promise to a certain group and this has been fulfilled.

(2) Bible Tongues Were Foreign Languages. Acts 2 find Jews present from “every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). These people spoke different languages. As the events in Acts 2 “were noised abroad, the multitude came together and were confused, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another. Behold are not all these which speak Galileans?” And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? (Acts 2:6-8). You can see from this passage a fact that needs to be realized. That these tongues were not just a lot of jabbering, but languages which could be understood

(3) One of the Spiritual Gifts was That of Tongue-speaking. There were nine spiritual gifts in the early days of the church to keep the church pure and to keep men on the right track (1 Cor. 12:1-11). One of these gifts was that of tongues and the interpretation of the tongues. These tongues in 1 Cor. 14 were also languages as in Acts 2. It can be seen from 1 Cor. 14:3,9, 13,23,27, 28,19.

(4) Bible Tongue-speaking was Orderly. The so-called “Tongue-speakers” that I have observed were disorderly with everybody trying to talk at once. Order characterized Bible tongue-speaking. “If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret” (1 Cor. 14:27). In fact, Paul said, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).

(5) Bible Tongues Were to be Understood. Truth must be spoken in such a way as to edify the hearers. If truth cannot be understood, how could it edify? Paul said, “So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air” (1 Cor. 14:2-9). Words which could be understood were more important than speaking in unknown tongues! Paul said, “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19).

(6) Use of an Interpreter. Many times Bible tongue-speaking required an interpreter. If, during the time of spiritual gifts, one was present who could not understand the language, one had to interpret. “Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret” (1 Cor. 14:13). The reason for an interpreter is that the unlearned would not understand the language (1 Cor. 14:16).

(7) Bible Tongue-speaking has Ceased. The Bible teaches that the use of tongues in the Bible way was only temporary. Bible tongue-speaking was associated with the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the laying-on-of-hands measure of the Spirit and, since we no longer have these, we no longer have miraculous tongue-speaking! Paul said, that “tongues would cease when that which is perfect (New Testament) is come” (1 Cor. 13:8-10).

Truth Magazine XXII: 17, p. 274
April 27, 1978

By Ronnie McCarty

In the previous article on this subject we dealt with the fact that when God designates a name for anything, He means for this name to be used. Now, let us examine some other names that are commonly misused and misapplied by the world and by Christians. The first term I would like for us to examine is “saint.” This name is misused and misapplied primarily because of the teaching of the Catholic church concerning one becoming a “saint.” According to their teaching, only a certain few are “saints”; for one to become a saint is extremely difficult. That this false teaching has spread into the world and even into the church is evidenced by the statements some Christians make-“Every man sins. After all, none of us are saints.” Or, “I know I’m not perfect; I’m not a saint.” It is true that all sin (Rom. 3:23), but we had all better be saints, because all Christians are saints (1 Cor. 1:2; 16:1; Eph. 1:1; 3:8; Phil. 1:1; Jude 3; Rev. 5:8). Saints are not just a group of men and women that have been deified by the Catholic Church.

Another term I would like for us to examine is reverend. Men apply or allow this term to be applied to themselves. But this designation is found only one time in the Bible, and it does not apply to any man. In Ps. 111:9, the Psalmist is speaking of Jehovah when he writes, “. . .Holy and reverend is His name.” No man has a right to wear this name. When man allows himself to be addressed by this term, or thinks of himself as reverend, he has taken the same attitude Herod displayed in Acts 12:20-23. From this passage we can also note the fate of Herod for his assumption.

The last name or designation we will consider in this article, is that of minister. This term is more misused than it is misapplied. The apostle Paul referred to himself as a minister (Rom. 15:16, Eph. 3:6-7). Paul described others as being ministers: Tychicus (Eph. 6:21), Epaphras (Col. 1:17), and Timothy (1 Tim. 4:6). From these passages and others, many (even Christians) think that the term minister is for use only by the preacher. This is erroneous thinking. It is true that preachers of the Gospel are ministers, but the fact is that all Christians are to be ministers (Heb. 6:10, 1 Pet. 4:10; 2 Cor. 9:1). Even some who are not necessarily Christians are called ministers of God (Rom. 13:6). Therefore, let us try not to call or make the preacher exclusively “the minister.”

There are other misused and misapplied Bible terms we could discuss. We could also mention the many unscriptural terms used in the realm of religion today, but I believe these few terms we have talked about will help us all to better appreciate the fact that when we speak that we must be “. . .speaking as it were the oracles of God . . . .”

Truth Magazine XXII: 16, p. 265
April 20, 1978

By T. G. 0’Neal

That Freemasonry is “a religious institution” with a new birth, a redeemer, offering, to the faithful, salvation at last in that grand celestial Lodge above, none who are informed will deny. However, that is the problem. Many people have never tried to learn anything about Masonry. So they do not know what it is. Those who are in the Masonic Lodge either do not know very much about it or when the truth is presented about it, will not admit it.

Masonry has some “secrets” about it and I suppose some of these “secrets” most of us care little about learning. However, one can learn enough about it to know that a Christian has no business being a member of the Lodge.

In this article I will be quoting from official Masonic works. I have double-checked all quotations in the article and have either the books quoted from in my library or a photocopy of the pages from the books quoted. I suggest that if you have copies of these works and would like to check the quotations, be sure you have the same edition I am quoting from. I have found that quotes are on different pages in different editions. The quotations in this article are from the following official Masonic works:

1. Tennessee Craftsman or Masonic Textbook, 1942 Reprint of Sixth Edition, February, 1931.

2. Kentucky Monitor by Henry Pirtle, 10th Edition, 1921.

3. Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike, 1932 edition.

4. 2 volumes, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry by Albert Mackey, 1929 edition, Revised and Enlarged by Robert Clegg.

5. 5 volumes, A Library of Freemasonry, 1906 edition.

Origin of Freemasonry

Dr. Mackey says at one time the origin of Masonry was placed “at the building of Solomon’s Temple” (Encyclopedia, page 87) but goes on to say, “I confess that I cannot find any incontrovertible evidence that would trace Freemasonry, as now organized, beyond the Building Corporations of the Middle Ages” (Encyclopedia, page 87) which he says “its age may not exceed five or six hundred years” (Encyclopedia, page 88). Dr. Mackey further says that Masonry may be connected “with the Ancient Mysteries of Greece, of Syria, and of Egypt” (Encyclopedia, page 88; emphasis mine, T.G.O.).

Albert Pike connects Masonry with the mysteries of ancient paganism. He says, “These old controversies have died away, and the old faiths have faded into oblivion. But Masonry still survives, vigorous and strong, as when philosophy was taught in the schools of Alexandria . . . .” (Morals and Dogma, pages 274-275; emphasis mine, T.G.O.). Pike says “our ancient brethren . . . took their philosophy from the Old Theology of the Egyptians, as Moses and Solomon had done” (Morals and Dogma, page 289; emphasis mine, T.G.O.) Pike further says that men sought “the wisdom of the Egyptian Initiates” for the purpose of “to seek the admission into the mysteries of Osiris and Isis” and that “from Egypt” “afterward these mysteries were introduced successively into Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Sicily, and Italy” (Morals and Dogma, page 363; emphasis mine, T.G.O.).

With Pike saying Masonry is connected with the mysteries of ancient paganism, one can understand Mackey’s statement “that its body came out of the Middle Ages, but that its spirit is to be traced to a far remoter period” (Encyclopedia, page 88). Mackey says, “The theory, then, that I advance on the subject of the Antiquity of Freemasonry is this: I maintain that, in its present peculiar organization, it is the successor, with certainty, of the Building Corporations of the Middle Ages, and through them, with less certainty but with great probability, of the Roman College of Artificers” (Encyclopedia, page 88).

Further, Mackey says, “Of Grand Lodges thus constituted, we have no written evidence previous to the year 1717, when Freemasonry was revived in England . . . . The true history of Grand Lodges commences, therefore, from what has been called the Era of the Revival. In 1716 four old Lodges in London determined, if possible, to revive the Institution from its depressed state, and accordingly they met in February, 1717 at the Apple-Tree Tavern, whose name has thus been rendered famous for all time; and after placing the oldest Master Mason, who was a Master of a Lodge, in the chair, they constituted themselves into a Grand Lodge, and forthwith “revived the Quarterly Communications of the officers of Lodges called the Grand Lodge …. On the following Saint John the Baptist’s Day (June 24, T.G.O.) the Grand Lodge was duly organized and Antony Sayer, Gentleman, was elected Grand Master” (Encyclopedia, page 416).

Thus, from the testimony of Masonic works one learns that Masonry based upon the philosphy of ancient paganism, was organized in London on June 24, 1717.

Masonry Is A Religion

Most people do not know that Masonry is a religion and Masons who know it will not admit it. Masonry is just another human religious denomination seeking to offer salvation.

Albert Pike says, “The religious faith thus taught by Masonry is indispensable to the attainments of the great ends of life” (Morals and Dogma, page 196; emphasis mine, T.G.O.). “Masonry is the legitimate successor-from the earliest times the custodian and depository of the great philosophical and religious truths, unknown to the world at large” (Ibid., page 210; emphasis mine, T.G.O.). “Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and its teachings are instruction in religion” (Ibid., page 213). “This is the true religion revealed to the ancient patriarchs; which Masonry has taught for many centuries, and which it will continue to teach as long as time endures” (Ibid., page 214; emphasis mine, T.G.O.) “The Degree of Apprentice (first degree of Masonry, T.G.O.) . . . declares that Masonry is a worship” (Ibid., page 219; emphasis mine, T.G.O.) “Masonry is a worship” (Ibid.. page 526).

Dr. Mackey says, “Freemasonry is a religious insitution (emphasis mine, T.G.O.) . . . it is of indispensable obligation that a Lodge, a Chapter, or any other Masonic Body, should be both opened and closed with prayer” (Encyclopedia, page 792). “Freemasonry may rightfully claim to be called a religious institution” (Ibid., page 847; emphasis mine, T.G.O.). “The religion or Freemasonry is not sectarian” (Ibid., page 847; emphasis mine, T.G.O.). “The tendency of all true Freemasonry is toward religion” (Ibid., page 847). “We contend, without any sort of hesitation, that Freemasonry in every sense of the word, except one, and that is at least philosophical, an eminently religious institution-is indebted solely to the religious element it contains for its origin as well as its continued existence, and that without this religious element it would scarcely be worthy of cultivation by the wise and good” (Ibid., page 847; emphasis mine, T.G.O.). “The doctrine of a resurrection to a future and eternal life constitutes an indispensable portion of the religious faith of Freemasonry” (Ibid., page 851).

“Masonry is a religious institution” (Kentucky Monitor, page 28).

Masonry and the Bible

Masonry teaches “The Holy Bible is given us as the rule and guide of our faith and practice” (Tennessee Craftsman, page 10); that is, the Bible is the rule and guide to the faith and practice of Masonry. Masonry also teaches that the “furniture of the Lodge consists of the Holy Bible” (Ibid., page 22).

While on one hand it appears they respect the Bible, let us notice some other statements.

Albert Pike says, “The great Apostle Saint John did not borrow from the philosophy of Plato the opening of his Gospel. Plato, on the contrary, drank at the same springs with Saint John and Philo; and John in the opening verse of his paraphrase, states the first principles of a dogma common to many schools, but in language especially belonging to Philo, whom it is evident he had read” (Morals and Dogma, pages 99-100). Masonry teaches that John, Plato and Philo all drank from the same common school of thought and’that John was influenced by Philo’s language and not the revelation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Again Pike says, “The familiar lineaments of these doctrines will be recognized by all who read the Epistle of St. Paul, who wrote after Philo, the latter living till the reign of Caligala, and being the contemporary of Christ. And the Mason is familiar with these doctrines of Philo” (Ibid., page 252). The writing of Paul was not, according to Masonry, the “commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37; see also 1 Cor. 2:10-14; Eph. 3:1-5) but rather the “doctrines of Philo” after whom Paul wrote. Reading Pike again, he says, “The Gospel is preached from many a book and painting, from many a poem and fiction, and review and newspaper; and it is a painful error and miserable narrowness, not to recognize these widespread agencies of Heaven’s providing; not to see and welcome these many-handed coadjutors to the great and good cause. The oracles of God do not speak from the pulpit alone” (Ibid., page 212-213). Thus, Masonry, in addition to not holding to the inspiration of Scripture, teaches that the “Oracles of God” are spoken from pictures, newspapers, reviews, poems and even fiction. Again, “The doctrines of the Bible are often not clothed in the language of strict truth, but in that which was fittest to convey to a rude and ignorant people the practice essentials of the doctrine” (Ibid., page 224). Thus, the Bible, according to Masonry, teaches and tells lies. Pike again says, “Truth might not have reached us, if it had not borrowed the wings of Error” (Ibid., page 224). Also, he says, “What is Truth to the philosopher, would not be truth, nor have the effect of Truth, to the peasant” (Ibid., page 224). Thus, truth is not always the same. Pike says, “The religion taught by Moses, which, like the laws of Egypt enunciated the principle of exclusion, borrowed at every period of its existence, from all the creeds with which it comes in contact, while, by the studies of the learned and wise, it enriched itself with the most admirable principles of the religions of Egypt and Asia, it was changed, in the wanderings of the people, by everything that was most impure or seductive in the pagan manners and superstitions. It was one thing in the times of Moses and Aaron, another in those of David and Solomon, and still another in those of David and Philo” (Ibid., page 247). Thus, the Bible is not inspired of God but is a mixture of all beliefs into which the people of God come into contact, including paganism. This is what Mason’s Albert Pike says of the Bible.

Dr. Albert Mackey says, “The Bible is used among Freemasons as a symbol of the will of God, however it may be expressed. Therefore, whatever to any people express that will may be used as a substitute for the Bible in a Masonic Lodge. Thus, in a Lodge consisting entirely of Jews, the Old Testament alone may be placed upon the altar, and Turkish Freemasons may use the Koran. Whether it be the Gospel to the Christian, the Pentateuch to the Israelite, the Koran to the Mussulman, or the Vedas to the Brahman, it everywhere Masonically conveys the same idea-that of the symbolism of the Divine Will revealed to man” (Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, page 133; emphasis mine, T.G.O.). Masonry teaches that the Koran will express the will of God just as well as the Bible. The Vedas would do just as well also, for the Bible is only the “symbol of -the will of God.” This is what Masons say about the Bible.

Masonry and Truth

While the Bible is truth (John 17:17) for it is the Word of God, not all then have knowledge of the truth. Man can know the truth by continuing in the Words of Jesus (John 8:32) which will cause them to know the truth. However, Masonry has a different idea about truth Pike says, “All truths are Truths of Period, and not truths for eternity” (Ibid., page 37). Further he says, “Masonry . . . uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it” (Ibid., pages 104-105). “It is the province of Masonry to teach all truths-not moral truth alone, but political and philosophical, and even religious truth so far as concerns the great and essential principles of each” (Ibid., page 148). Pike says that truth is not always the same; that Masonry on purpose deceives people and conceals the truth from them. He claims Masonry teaches all religious truth, but Christ said the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth (John 16:13). Either the Holy Spirit did that and Masonry has no truth to teach or Masonry has to teach the truth because the Holy Spirit failed to teach the apostles all truth. Which do you believe, dear reader?

Masonry has a lot of egotism to say, “Masonry is the . . . custodian and depository of the great . . . religious truths, unknown to the world at large” (Ibid., page 210) and then say that she intentionally misleads people with her truth. The truth of the matter is that there is no truth known to the world of a religious’ nature that is not revealed by God unto mankind in the Bible (John 16:13; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Eph. 3:1-5; 1 Cor. 2:10-14; 2 Peter 1:3; Jude 3; Gal. 1:6-9; Jas. 1:25; 1 Peter 1:22-23; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

While most people are not aware of it, Masonry teaches that men may worship deity in it and at last receive salvation. This the reader’s attention is invited to consider.

Truth Magazine XXII: 16, pp. 262-264
April 20, 1978