Truth Magazine

By Richard Boone

Purpose: To show scriptural, sensible reasons why Christians should not marry unbelievers.

Introduction:

1. A problem that faces every Christian when he comes to adult age is that of whom to marry.

2. In our day, when infidels out-number Christians, it is made more difficult because it seems as though there are so few Christians available.

3. I want to give some scriptural, sensible reasons why Christians should not marry unbelievers.

4. This lesson applies to all of us because young people will be making their choices, and parents and other relatives should be providing the proper training along this line.

5. Before I proceed any further, let me make two specific statements:

a. While marrying an unbeliever is not a sin (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12-13), is is unwise.

b. Although it is possible that the unbeliever can be converted (cf. 1 Pet. 3:1-2), statistics do not favor the Christian.

6. With those remarks made, please consider carefully the following reasons why a believer should not marry an unbeliever.

Body:

I. The Scriptures Speak Against Inter-Marrying With Unbelievers.

A. They speak by direct statement (Deut. 7:1-5).

B. They speak by example (cf. Rom. 15:4).

1. Abraham did not want Isaac to marry a Canaanite (Gen. 24:1-4).

2. Esau’s wives were a “grief of mind” to Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 26:34-35).

3. Rebekah did not want Jacob to marry a Canaanite (Gen. 27:46-28:5).

4. Solomon’s heart was turned away by non-Israelite women (1 Kings 11:1-8).

5. Peter had “a sister, a wife” (1 Cor. 9:5).

C. The Christian will have trouble with his spiritual “father-in-law” (John 8:44)!

II. Problems In A Religiously Mixed Marriage.

A. Marriage partners should have the same goal (Gen. 2:24; Prov. 31:10-12).

1. While marriage between Christians won’t be without problems, the chances of solving their problems are greater because they are working toward the same goal – heaven.

2. In a mixed marriage the Christian is trying to work toward heaven, and the unbeliever is not.

B. Just between the marriage partners, there may be conflicts over:

1. Worship (cf. Jn. 4:23-24):

a. Your attendance may be affected (Heb. 10:25).

b. Your Bible study may be affected (2 Pet. 3:18).

c. Your praying may be hindered (1 Thess. 5:17).

2. Marital responsibilities (1 Cor. 7:1-5; Eph. 5:22-23; 1 Tim. 5:8,14; etc.).

3. Morality (Eph. 4:25ff; Col. 3:5-17).

C. When children are born, there may be trouble over:

1. Religious upbringing (cf. Deut. 6:4-6; Eph. 6:4).

2. Discipline (Prov. 13:24; 22:6; Heb. 12:5-11).

D. As this only scratches the surface, there are many other problems that can exist in a marriage between a Christian and one who is not a Christian.

1. The Scriptures warn us about inter-marrying with infidels.

2. We see some of the problems that can exist in a religiously mixed marriage.

3. Let us make it our aim to marry faithful Christians and teach young adults to do the same!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, p. 719
December 7, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Elsewhere in this issue, see Ben Vick, Jr.’s article, “We Are Going to Have to Defend the Truth Among Our Own Brethren (II)”.

Brother Vick’s central point sticks the institutional position in its vital areas. Brother Vick’s argument pricks the bubble of societies which purpose to “rob the church of her work.” He is to be commended for his expressed attitude and his manifest courage in attacking liberal bastions. However, do not expect that his article will be met with a similar reasoned response from his “own brethren.” Do not think that his “own brethren” will summarily dismantle their “unauthorized” organizations. They will not. Brother Vick had better prepare for stone-cold silence from some, emotional epithets from others and for malicious misrepresentation.

This review will not seek to take a negative, repelling tact, designed to further alienate and isolate brother Vick. Rather, it shall strive to: (1) Help our brother to see his inconsistency; (2) Assist him in understanding that the principles and pattern of truth which he advocates he also violates. To do this will require direct, pointed argument, such as brother Vick himself employs against his “own brethren.”

Remember, too, that brother Vick’s institutional concepts are, at least in part, responsible for the societies which he opposes. It is impossible to have “a little” liberalism, for a little liberalism liberalizes the whole lump. Brother Vick does not accept this. He does not perceive it, conceive it or believe it, but it is true nonetheless. In the 1950s, brethren of brother Vick’s persuasion were nearly unanimous in the position for which he contends, but a gradual leavening has occurred in the intervening years. The institutional leaven has affected a lump, infected a generation and effected an apostasy. The lump is now a mountain, a towering precipice of crystallized societies of every stripe, scope and size. Brother Vick’s leaven helped make it all possible. Compare the corollary history of the nineteenth century digression.

WCBC and Herald of Truth

World Christian Broadcasting Corporation (WCBC) is the first missionary society that comes under fire from brother Ben. See his comments. Ben, if WCBC was under an eldership, after the model of Herald of Truth, would it be scriptural? If I could show that Herald of Truth has its own directors, that checks can be made payable to Herald of Truth and are deductible for income tax purposes, would you say that Herald of Truth is an unscriptural missionary society? Further, suppose I could show that Herald of Truth has “its own ‘voice’ for raising money.” Ben, would you oppose it, then?

Would WCBC, “Way of the Cross” and “a number of ‘organizations’ which are ‘under’ different elderships” be scriptural if they were truly controlled by sponsoring churches?

Brother Vick says, “The sponsoring church is simply the church at work; and other congregations are having fellowship in the endeavor.” Which “church,” brother Vick, is “at work”? Is it the “sponsoring church?” Are the “other congregations” “at work,” too, or are they simply “having fellowship in the endeavor?” If it is the work of all the participating churches, who or what determines who shall have “the oversight thereof?” If it is the work of all the churches, the sponsoring church is overseeing at least a part of the work of all the other churches. If it is not the work of the contributing churches which “are having fellowship in the endeavor, ” why do they participate at all? Surely, it will not surprise brother Vick to learn that nineteenth century advocates of the missionary society argued that “the missionary society is simply the church at work and congregations are having fellowship in the endeavor.”

“If It Can Be Done In Benevolence”

Brother Vick asks, “If it can be done in benevolence (2 Cor. 8 and 9; Rom. 15:26-27), then why not in evangelism, since both go hand in hand (Gal. 2:9-10)?” What brother Vick does not recognize is that what was “done in benevolence” is not what he is doing “in evangelism.”

Even brother Vick does not believe his own rule which asks, “If it can be done in benevolence (2 Cor. 8 and 9; Rom. 15:26-27), then why not in evangelism, since both go hand in hand (Gal. 2:9-10)?” Though they “go hand in hand , ” he does not believe that what “can be done in benevolence” may also be done “in evangelism,” for he believes an organization which is “separate and apart from the church” can be funded by churches “in benevolence,” but that societies “separate and apart from the church” have no right to exist” “in evangelism.” So, according to brother Vick, what goes “hand in hand” cannot always hold hands.

Brother Vick does not believe that the benevolence of 2 Corinthians 8 & 9 was limited to the “poor saints.” Could the church, therefore, send money to a Catholic “orphan home,” since, according to brother Ben, “orphan homes do the work of a home, not the church”? Using elements of his own rule, we inquire, if it can be done in benevolence among poor saints (i.e., churches contributing to societies operated by brethren), then why not in benevolence among Catholics (i.e., churches contributing to societies operated by Catholics), “since both go hand in hand?”

Man, Monkeys and Societies

Brother Vick anticipates the parallel of benevolent societies and missionary societies with his man-monkey comparison. If the “errorists” brother Bick assails (Joe D. Schubert, M. Norvell Young, Tim E. Matheny, Jerry Humphries, Allen Isbell, etc.) want an easy answer to brother Vick, they may simply feed him from his own spoon. Vick says the organizations he cites and indicts are “nothing more than missionary societies.” If I were the above named “errorists,” I would reply, “Just to say our works are like the missionary society does not make them such any more than to call a man a monkey makes him a monkey. A man may swing from trees and eat bananas, but that does not make him a monkey.” It is likely that Ben would not consider that much of a response. Neither do we.

A man and a monkey are alike in that they may swing from trees and eat bananas. True, that comparison neither makes a monkey a man, nor a man a monkey. No one says it does. However, they -are still similar in those respects. Likewise, comparing a benevolent society (“orphan home”) and a missionary society does not make a benevolent society a missionary society nor a missionary society a benevolent society. Again, no one says it does. However, they are still similar in those aspects. No one argues that a man is a monkey because he eats bananas and swings from a tree. No one argues that a benevolent society is a missionary society, but the parallels still exist. Both are human organizations. Both seek to do the work God assigned to the church. Both are unauthorized by the Scriptures.

Churches are authorized to “relieve” certain needy ones (1 Tim. 5:16). Churches are authorized to preach the gospel (1 Thess. 1:8). In evangelism, the church is not a means or method of preaching the gospel. It is an organization, created by God, that must use means or methods to preach the gospel. It is an organization, created by men, that must use means or methods to preach the gospel. In benevolence, the church is not a means or method of relieving the needy. It is an organization, created by God, that must use means or methods of relieving the needy. A benevolent society is not a means or method of relieving the needy. It is an organization, created by men, that must use means or methods to relieve the needy.

To paraphrase brother Vick, “Why cannot we be simply gospel preachers and members of the Lord’s church and spread the gospel, relieve the needy and edify the saints? Why do some brethren (like brother Vick) think they must have some organization separate from the church through which to do the work of the church? Was Paul a member of some organization such as Schultz-Lewis, Childhaven and Herald Of Truth or World Radio? Why cannot brethren be content with the Lord’s organization?” Why, indeed?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 721, 722
December 7, 1989

By Phil T. Arnold

In attending the Oklahoma Christian College lectureship this past January (1989), I heard a speaker ask the audience (the majority of whom I assume were members of “institutional” churches of Christ), “How many of you worship with a congregation that has a ‘fellowship hall.” I was tempted to raise my hand for here at 84th Street we do have a “fellowship hall.” That is, we have a building in which we join together in fellowship in singing spiritual songs, offering prayers to God, studying his word, and remembering his Son’s sacrifice. But I knew, and so did everyone else, that this was not what he meant when he inquired about a “fellowship hall.” Instead, he was referring to a kitchen/dining/banqueting room in which members of the church and their friends and visitors might join together in eating common meals. Such a facility as an addition to the meeting house has, in recent years, become quite common. Brethren have apparently attempted to justify this addition by attaching a biblical expression (“fellowship”) to what they choose to call it. The reasoning perhaps being that by calling their kitchen and banquet room a “fellowship hall” long enough, it will lead others to conclude that such truly is a work of the church and is based on Bible authority.

As the speaker looked around the room a grin came over his face and he commented, I ‘It has gotten to the point that we can’t hear the word ‘fellowship’ without smelling the coffee.” At this point the room filled with laughter and sheepish smiles came across many faces. Rather than being amused, I was deeply saddened to think how far many of my brethren have gotten from God’s truth and how the Lord’s “soul center” (the church) is being turned into a “social center” often rivaling or surpassing the local YMCA. And like Israel of old, brethren today have forgotten even how to “blush” at the mention of their sin (Jer. 8:12). They have also forgotten the plea of Bible authority in all things that has been heralded through past generations in attempting to restore, protect, and preserve the church of Christ. Instead, they follow the path of the “social gospel” and are often only a step behind the most “progressive” (?) denomination in the facilities they offer including (not only “fellowship halls but) gymnasiums, wedding chapels, counseling centers, community centers, etc. The facilities are simply reflective of the activities that have come to dominate such congregations. To all who are concerned about the will of God there are questions that beg to be answered. “Where is the authority for such facilities and such activities?” “Where is the authority for the church to engage in such programs as part of their work?”

And what began among most as simply a plea for “eating on the grounds” has seen no stopping point. Note the following:

Item: From the bulletin of the Richland Hills church of Christ in Dallas we note that their 1988 budget included funds for the Family Life Center (polite euphemism for gymnasium), Financial Accounting, Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation, Employment and Financial Counseling, Life After Drugs, and Real Estate Management.

Item: From the calendar published in the bulletin of the Homewood church of Christ in Birmingham, Alabama are the following notices: Softball coaches meeting, Auditions for the play “He Just Keeps Rollin’ Along,” Boy Scout pack meeting, blood drive, Easter egg hunt, The Homewood Talent Show and Lip-Sync contest to be held in the gym, and a Church-wide Barbecue and Fellowship.

Item: From the bulletin of the Westbury church of Christ in Houston under the heading, “Activities of the Westbury Congregation,” are the following announcements: Table Games Night, Fellowship Meal, Men’s Basketball, Snow Skiing, Kite Flying/Picnic, and Children’s Ice Skating.

(Note: The above items were taken from an article by Don C. Truex published in The Southside Reminder.)

Those things which are mentioned above and even more were formerly only associated with denominations and were almost universally condemned by churches of Christ. Now they are being observed with an increased regularity among our brethren as a large segment of the Lord’s church continues its seemingly unavoidable harmony with denominationalism as distinguishing marks from denominationalism continue to fall. Invitations to come hear the gospel are being replaced today with invitations to “come help eat the world’s largest hot dog. ” One can hardly imagine what brethren are imagining to do. Once the demand for Bible authority is set aside, or at least compromised, the only limit placed upon the church is the desire of the people and the imagination of their leaders.

Through the years we have told the world that we give “book, chapter, and verse” for all that we do. And, if we can’t, we’ll quit doing it. We would do well to return to this stand from which so many have departed and ask ourselves: “Where is the authority for the church to build and/or maintain a gymnasium or a fellowship hall?” “Where is the Scripture that authorizes the church to use its facilities for social and/or recreational purposes?” “Where is the command, example, or necessary inference for the church to enter into the work of entertainment?”

Some who have swallowed the social gospel “hook, line, and sinker” often no longer make any effort at all to justify their practices on the basis of Scripture. Instead, they simply speak of “keeping up with the times,” “ministering to the whole man,” and not being so “narrow-minded” concerning such “good works.” Others have sought to justify such practices on the basis of a “new hermeneutic” and “Christ’s life,” apart from his doctrine, as our understanding of what the church is to do. The old stand-by has been to justify such practices on the basis of “expediency.” But in order for a matter to be expedient, it must first be shown to be lawful (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23). Again, where is the authority for the church to engage in this category of work of “fun and food fellowship”? What is being expedited by such expedients? What work of the church does “fun and food fellowship” help to accomplish? One Oklahoma City area preacher attempted to justify the practice of fellowship dinners as simply as means of advertising the church by comparing it to a newspaper ad of the location and times of assembly of a local congregation. Apparently feeling that the “ends justifies the means,” he also pointed out that spending the advertising budget on food to be served would be more efficient in bringing people to the assembly than a newspaper ad. This reminded me of a discussion I once heard when an elder stated that he “would set up a hot dog stand in the foyer if it would bring more people to church. ” Another preacher in the Oklahoma City area blatantly attempted to justify their “fun and food fellowship” activities by comparing them to the activity of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in gaining an audience for the hearing of the gospel. He went so far as to refer to the activity of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost as a “gimmick.” Such brilliant scriptural exegesis and wonderful argumentation borders on blasphemy!

Such sentiments reflect a lack of respect for the will of God and a lack of confidence in the drawing power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Their efforts to “assist the Lord” are reminiscent of Sara’s advice to Abraham concerning begetting an heir by Hagar, her handmaiden. In 1951 B.C. Goodpasture wrote, “It is not the mission of the church to furnish amusement for the world or even for its own members. Innocent amusement in proper proportion has its place in the life of all normal persons but it is not the business of the church to furnish it. . . . For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission. It is to degrade its mission. Amusement and recreation should stem from the home rather than the church. The church, like Nehemiah, has a great work to do; and it should not come down on the pl i s of Ono to amuse and entertain. As the church turns its attention to amusement and recreation, it will be shorn of its power as Samson was when his hair was cut. Only as the church becomes worldly, as it pillows its head on the lap of Delilah, will it want to turn from its wonted course to relatively unimportant matters” (1951 Gospel Advocate Annual Lesson Commentary).

Recent articles in The Christian Chronicle have lamented the financial “crunch” facing many congregations. Among those things which have so indebated many local congregations is the building and maintaining of all types of social/recreational facilities and programs. Many elderships now feel that such is necessary to compete not only with denominations but with other “churches of Christ” in the area. No longer do visitors simply want to know “when are your times of assembling?” and “what spiritual work is the congregation involved in?” Now they want to know if congregations offer a day care center for the toddlers, a secular school for the children, a basketball team for dad, and aerobic’s class for mom, and “fun and food fellowship” for one and all. Brother Goodpasture’s prophecy is being realized and the church is being “shorn of its power.” Is it any wonder that we are rapidly becoming what some have termed a “worldly church” and are no longer looked upon as a “people of the book” as members are being multiplied by the “loaves and the fishes” (Jn. 6:26,27) rather than love of the truth and faith!

Again, we would plead for peace and unity, but not at the cost of prostituting the church for which our Lord shed his blood. Jesus’ precious blood was shed to purchase the church, a spiritual house with a spiritual mission (Eph. 5:25-27; 1 Pet. 2:5; 1 Tim. 3:15). Wholesome social activities are important in the life of each Christian; but God made a distinction between the responsibility of the home and the responsibility of the church (1 Cor. 11:22; Rom. 14:17). Churches need to specialize in being churches and encourage parents to specialize in building good homes. The church was not established to promote aerobic classes and softball teams and “bodily exercise” which “is profitable for a little,” but rather “godliness” which “is profitable for all things; having a promise of the life which now is and of that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:8). What is needed to accomplish the work of the church is not “gimmicks” but the “gospel” of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:16). Yes, the church meeting here at 84th Street has a “fellowship hall” in which we enjoy the greatest fellowship of all – the fellowship of God by abiding within his word (2 Jn. 9). Let us return to allowing the church to be what the Lord planned and not man – a “soul center” rather than a “social center.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 716-717
December 7, 1989

By Curtis Carr

In my opinion, one of the most controversial subjects that can be discussed is Freemasonry. The reason being that it is shrouded in secrecy. Especially is this true when there is someone not in Freemasonry discussing it with someone who is in it. The Mason will become very disturbed that a non-Mason would even insinuate that there may be something wrong with his being a member of the lodge. This will even further disturb him if it involves the religious aspects of Freemasonry. The reason for this negative reaction is that it is difficult for a Mason to understand how a non-member could possibly know more about Freemasonry than an actual member. What will follow will be a brief look at not only what the leaders of Freemasonry say it is, but why there is such a misunderstanding on the part of some Masons as to what Freemasonry is really all about.

Degrees of Masonry

We must first explain for those not familiar with Masonry its various levels. There are 33 different levels or degrees. Each degree involves the memorization of certain material, and the going through certain ceremonies or rituals before the person may move up to the next level. The first three levels, called the “Blue Degrees,” usually take approximately one year apiece to complete. After attaining the third degree, the person has become what is referred to as a “Master Mason.” They spend months and months memorizing the various materials for levels 1-3, and are told that the reason for the tedious memorization process is that none of it is written down. They are misled here deliberately misled according to Albert Pike, perhaps their greatest writer and 33rd degree Master Mason. The reason for this deliberate deception will be discussed later. Next he may decide to move up into the higher degrees by going to a series of classes that range from one to several days in order to become a 32nd degree Master Mason. Though it took him about 3 years to go through the first 3 degrees, he can go from level 3 to level 32 all at once in only a matter of days. This is as high as he can go on a local level. If he should decide to try to attain the 33rd level, he would have reached the very highest degree and therefore attain a more complete understanding of what the organization is really all about. Should he decide, as most Masons do, to be satisfied with remaining at the 32nd level, he will never be taught what the symbols and allegories really mean. Until he reaches the top, he will not be taught what Freemasonry really believes about itself. Freemasonry is made up of autonomous local lodges. Most Masons don’t even know that there is a level of worldwide organization. This upper level is where the 33rd degree comes in to play. Generally speaking, if you were to ask a Mason what the purpose of Freemasonry is, they would probably say that it teaches them how to become better citizens and that it is a very charitable organization. Its teachings, though, are cloaked in symbolism and allegories and that is where the problem comes in. Notice the following:

… the Mason who knows nothing of our symbolism knows little of Freemasonry. He may be able to repeat every line of the Ritual without an error, and yet, if he does not understand the meaning of the ceremonies, the signs, the words, the emblems, and the figures, he is an ignoramus Masonically. It is distressing to witness how much time and labor is spent in memorizing ‘the work’; and how little in ascertaining what it all means. . . . The study of no other aspect of Freemasonry is more important, yet the study of no other aspect of it has been so much neglected (Symbolism of the Three Degrees, by Oliver Day Street, pp. 5-6, published by the Masonic Service Association of the U.S.).

The only way a Mason can learn “what it all means” is to reach the 33rd level. If for whatever reason he never does that, then he will never find out what the true picture of Masonry is all about. With the exception of course being that a Mason may come across material such as this. There are many books which contain this material and are published by Freemasonry itself. However, the availability of these books is restricted to 33rd degree Masons I It is from those books that much of this material has come. Though these books are somewhat scarce, they can be found at used and rare book stores. That is where I acquired those that I have.

“Truths” Hidden

Why is it that the vast majority of Master Masons never even attempt to reach the highest level, the 33rd degree? I believe it is a result of the fact that they are not aware that they have been deliberately misled concerning the meaning of symbols and secrets.

The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the Symbols are displayed there to the initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he should understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine that he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry (Morals and Dogmas, by Albert Pike, p. 819).

This apparently acts as sort of a filtering process to weed out those who are not worthy to understand the “Truth.” The 32nd degree Master Mason must take the initiative to seek out those true meanings.

In the ceremonies of making a Mason we do not attempt to do more than to indicate the pathway to Masonic knowledge, to lay the foundation for the Masonic edifice; the brother must pursue the journey or complete the structure for himself by reading and reflection (Symbolism of the Three Degrees, by Street, p. 8).

If a Mason doesn’t take the initiative to pursue this knowledge, then he will never find out what the true meanings are, but will only “imagine he understands them.”

Now what are some of these things that are hidden from the lower degrees in Masonry? Almost all of it involves the religion of Masonry!

. . . to those who advance to the highest Degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. That Rite raised a corner of the veil, even in the Degree of apprentice; for it there declares that Masonry is a Worship (Morals and Dogmas, p. 219).

Pike says that the veil begins to be lifted as one advances to the higher degrees. But even in the lower degrees, some of the aspects of what Masonry really is can begin to be understood, though only given in hidden symbols. He then goes on to tell what it is that those “who advance to the highest degrees” begin to see.

It (Masonry) is the universal, eternal, immutable religion, such as God planted it in the heart of universal humanity (Morals and Dogmas, p. 219).

Masonry Is a Religion

What begins to be understood is that Masonry is not only a religion, which they had always believed that it was not, but it is the original religion from which all other religions sprang, including Christianity!

. . . that all may see the benign influence of Masonry, as all true Masons have done from the beginning of the world, and will do to the end of time (The Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas, p. 63).

. . . the mysteries, of which 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, and handed down from age to age by an unbroken current of tradition, embodied in symbols, emblems and allegories (Morals and Dogmas, p. 210).

Masonry, when properly expounded, is at once the interpretation of the great book of nature, the recital of physical and astronomical phenomena, the purest philosophy, and the place of deposit, where, as in a Treasury, are kept in safety, all the great truths of the primitive revelation, that form the basis of all religions (Morals and Dogmas, p. 625).

All truly dogmatic religions have issued from the Kabalah and return to it . . . the Kabalah alone consecrates the alliance of the Universal Reason and the Divine Word . . . it has the keys of the Present, the Past, and the Future . . the Bible, with all the allegories it contains, expresses in an incomplete and veiled manner only, the religious science of the Hebrews (Morals and Dogmas, p. 744).

The appointed action of life is the great training of Providence; and if man yields himself to it, he will need neither churches nor ordinances, except for the expression of his religious homage and gratitude (Morals and Dogmas, pp. 211-212).

Masonry’s View of Other Religions

They then are taught how they are to view those other religions and religious teachers as they relate to the original religion of Masonry.

It (Masonry) reverences all the great reformers. It sees in Moses, the Lawgiver of the Jews, in Confucius and Zoroaster, in Jesus of Nazareth, and in the Arabian Iconoclast, Great Teachers of morality, and Eminent Reformers, if no more. and allows every brother of the Order to assign to each such higher and even Divine Character as his creed and Truth require. Thus Masonry disbelieves no truth, and teaches unbelief in no creed, except so far as such creed may . . . strike at those great columns of Masonry (Morals and Dogmas, p. 525).

So the Arabic, hrm, an unused root, meant, “was high,” and “made great,” “exalted,” and Hiram means . . . the personification of Light and the Son, the Mediator, Redeemer, and Savior … chief or master (Morals and Dogmas, p. 79).

That was a reference to Hiram Abiff. He was called the Mediator, Redeemer, Savior, etc. Abiff, according to Masonry, was the chief Mason over construction of Solomon’s temple. He was allegedly murdered by 3 men for refusing to reveal the secrets of Masonry (see Duncan’s Ritual, pp. 122-123).

Now what have we seen so far concerning the religious teachings of Masonry? They are taught in the lower degrees that all religions are equal and that one is just as good as another, even those such as Islam that teach that Jesus was not the Son of God. That is why a Bible may be used in lodges in one part of the world and the Koran in another. Yet if and when they reach the 33rd degree, they learn that Masonry is the original religion. It contains the religious truths unknown to the world at large. It has preserved the great truths that form the basiq of all religions. The Kabalah alone contains the keys to the present, past, and future. The Bible, being incomplete, is only the religious science of the Hebrews. A Mason does not need a church because modem churches are just offshoots from the original truths contained in Freemasonry!

Masonry’s Views of the Bible and Jesus

Next we will look at a few quotes that will shed some more light on Masonry’s view, not only of Jesus, but of the Bible as well.

The Bible is just one of the Great Lights . . . But the shadow must not be taken for the substance. There is nothing sacred or holy in the mere book. . . It is what it typifies (Masonry) that renders it sacred to us. Any other book having the same signification would do just as well (Symbolism of the Three Degrees, p. 36).

The Bible, with a the allegories it contains, expresses, in an incomplete and veiled manner only, the religious science of the Hebrews (Morals and Dogmas, p. 744).

Any one who will make a little study of this doctrine of inspiration will soon realize what treacherous sands of theological dogma Masonry will find itself should it ever attempt to enforce belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God. There is but one escape from this jungle of dogmatism and that is frankly to acknowledge the Bible to be a symbol only (Symbolism of the Three Degrees, p. 40).

Not only is it the official position of Freemasonry that it is the original religion from which all others sprang, and that Jesus was just a “great teacher,” but also that the Bible is an “incomplete,” “uninspired” book that only belongs with “the other great lights.”

Next, let’s see what the upper level of Freemasonry teaches concerning the salvation of man. Remember that this is what is taught by the “Adepts,” the 33rd degree Master Masons:

A little study will reveal to us that the great, vital, underlying idea, sought to be inculcated by the several degrees considered collectively and which runs entirely through the system, is to give an allegorical or symbolic representation of human existence, not only here but hereafter, and to point the way which leads to the greatest good both in this life and in the life to come (Symbolism of the Three Degrees, p. 9).

Let him who toils complain not, nor feel humiliated! Let him look up, and see his fellow workmen there, in God’s Eternity; they alone surviving there. Even in the weak human memory, they long survive, and as Saints, as Heroes, and as Gods: they alone survive, and people the unmeasured solitudes of Time (Morals and Dogmas, p. 343).

There you have it! This probably comes as a shock to most who read this, especially to those Masons who have not achieved the 33rd degree! I have tried to include enough in each quote to properly set the context, but if there is a question about that, you may check the references that I have given.

Religions Ceremonies of Masonry

The last thing that I want to look at is how a man could be a Mason for years and not see the religion in it even if it is cloaked in symbolism. Consider these key points of Masonry:

1. The prayers that are offered.

2. The reference to a temple.

3. The title given to the head of the Lodge, “Worshipful Master” (A title forbidden to be worn in Matt. 23:91).

4. There are washings that are sometimes referred to as baptisms (Morals and Dogmas, p. 538).

5. There is a type of communion with bread and wine that is learned in the 33rd degree representing the bodies of all the great reformers, including Jesus (Morals and Dogmas, p. 539).

6. They call each other “brothers.”

7. Many of their symbols represent God.

8. Many of their rituals speak of the “Great Architect in the Sky.”

9. They have an altar.

10. They have deacons.

11. There is a Holy of Holies.

12. Certain ceremonies involve kneeling.

13. There is a High Priest.

14. In various levels they are given a “secret word.” The word given at level 7 is ” Jah-buh-lun, ” which is supposed to be the word for God or Jehovah. (More on this word later.)

15. During the initiation ceremony the Worshipful Master (who represents King Solomon) takes the hand of the initiate (who represents Hiram Abiff) and tries to raise him from the dead. It is not until the proper hand grip is used that the “resurrection” takes place. He is now in “the light.”

I have had 32nd degree Masons tell me that they don’t know how they missed the religion in Masonry all those years. It was right there before their eyes, only veiled in symbolism. Had they attained the 33rd degree, it would have all been laid out in black and white before them. It all goes back to what Pike said regarding the deliberate deception of the lower degrees. It is intended that those in the lower degrees shall “imagine that he understands them.” When I hear a 32nd degree Master Mason say emphatically that Freemasonry is not a religion, I understand that he honestly is not aware that he has been deliberately misled!

A Christian Cannot Be A Mason

How does all of this relate to Christianity? I dare say that a Christian cannot be a Mason and at the same time be pleasing to God! Notice what is said at an initiation of a new member in answer to the question “who comes here”?

Mr. _______, who had long been in darkness, and now seeks to be brought to light and to receive a part in the rights and benefits of this worshipful lodge, erected to God, and dedicated to the Holy saint John. . . (Duncan’s Ritual, p. 29).

Listen to a part of the oath that they must recite at the end of the initiation:

All this I solemnly, sincerely promise and swear . . . binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea, at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I ever knowingly violate this my entered Apprentice obligation. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the performance of the same (Duncan’s Ritual, pp. 34-35).

Can you imagine a Christian saying that he is “in darkness” and seeks to be enlightened through Masonry? As far as the oath, I can not picture any adult, much less a Christian, making such a statement! – It sounds more like what you might hear a child say at an initiation to the new clubhouse!

At various levels secret words are given. I find it very disturbing that the “sacred word” given at the 17th degree is “Abaddon” (Scottish Rite Masonry, pp. 452-453). If this word sounds familiar, you probably will remember that in Revelation 9:11 the name “Abaddon” refers to the one who is the angel of the bottomless pit, Satan! Not only is it odd that Abaddon is one of the secret words in Masonry, but it is called a sacred word!

What about the secret word for God or Jehovah that is given at level 7, “Jah-buh-lun”? Duncan explains the meaning of the word:

JEHOVAH. Of the varieties of the sacred name in use among different nations of the earth, three particularly merit the attention of Royal Arch Masons.

1. JAH. This name of God is found in the 68th Psalm, vs. 4.

2. BAAL or BEL. This word signifies a lord, master, or possessor, and hence it was applied by many of the nations of the East to denote the Lord of all things, and the Master of the world.

3. ON. This was the name by which JEHOVAH was worshiped among the Egyptians (Duncan’s Ritual, pp. 224-226).

It is absolutely incredible that Freemasonry could have as its secret name for God, a word whose components come from the Pagan gods Baal and On! Baal is referred to many times in the Bible as being a false god to whom idolatrous nations were offering human sacrifices (see 2 Kgs. 16:3, 21:3-6). I cannot see how a professing Christian could possibly call the true and living God by a man-made name such as “Jah-buh-lun”!

Conclusion

Masonry is not the original religion; it is not the true religion! It is “another religion” teaching “another gospel”! Paul warned in Galatians 1:6-8 that anyone involved in any other gospel than that of Jesus Christ was to be “accursed.” If you are a Mason and refuse to open your eyes and examine more closely this organization that you are in, then you will have no excuse on the day of Judgment for your ignorance. I pray that if you are in Freemasonry that you will carefully consider the points that have been made in this material.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 710-711, 724-725
December 7, 1989