This appears to have been lifted from some Presbyterian group report in 1942, but the antimasonic website I originally got it from had no citation for where it came from. Points from the document are made in bold.
Some opening points:
1) Even though well written, this document fails utterly to consider the basic fact that what any Mason says about Masonry is simply that Mason’s opinion when he writes in areas outside of the landmarks and basics of Freemasonry. This is most especially true when speaking of "mystical" areas.
2) As a Mason, I find it sad that despite the claims of writers such as these to be godly and impartial, I can usually immediately or with a trivial amount of research spot omissions and glossing over of portions of rituals and Masonic books that make points like these obviously self-refuting. It gives the appearance that the writers are ignorant at best and liars at worst.
3) The scholarship of the antimason rivals the scholarship of pop antiChristian writers. If one agrees with the level of scholarship in The Da Vinci Code, then this is no problem. Change contexts and redefining terms into something other than their original meaning is not honest scholarship.
Masonry also lays claim to universalism, but its universalism differs radically from that of Christianity in that it denies Christian particularism and exclusivism.
No, it does not deny it, it simply does not address it. Masonry acknowledges the Creator (“Grand/Great Architect of the Universe” or GAOTU) as He reveals Himself in nature. From the Christian perspective this would be a preChristian belief not something in “competition”. It is simply why every man is not excused because creation itself declares the Creator.
Christianity claims to have the only true book, the Bible. Masonry places this book on a par with the sacred books of other religions.
Correct since Masonry does not elevate itself to make those kinds of distinctions since it is not a religion in and of itself. This is a category error since Freemasonry specifically does NOT choose to operate at that level organizationally, but leaves such determinations to the individual Mason.
Christianity lays claim to the only true God, the God of the Bible, and denounces all other Gods as idols. Masonry recognizes the Gods of all religions.
No, it only recognizes the Creator and leaves the rest of the “details” to the individual Mason. Again, this goes beyond the scope of Freemasonry to judge.
Christianity describes God as the Father of Jesus Christ and of those who through faith in Him have received the right to be called the sons of God. The God of Masonry is the universal father of all mankind.
As Christ, the last Adam, died for all men (although not all will receive His sacrifice), so all men are descended from the first Adam and are made in the image of God. To deny this would be to repeat the error of Cain when he asked if he was his brother’s keeper. I addressed the other issue with this kind of comment here. Simply put, God is my Father and all Christians are to be my brothers, but what do I call the man who provided the genetic material to make me? (IOW, "fathered" me.) What do I call fellow veterans from the military? What do I call my male siblings? Am I damned to hell and a questionable Christian because I call my male siblings "brother" and the man responsible for half of my DNA "father"?
Christianity holds that only the worship of the God who has revealed Himself in Holy Scripture is true worship. Masonry honors as true worship the worship of numerous other deities.
Again confusion about where Freemasonry draws the line. Masonry, as an organization, does not make this distinction, but leaves it to the individual Mason. It seems a definition error also. Any man can truly worship anything, but as to whether or not it is valid or simply praying to the dark is beyond the scope of what Freemasonry judges.
Christianity recognizes but one Saviour, Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. Masonry recognizes many saviours.
No. Same error again between organizational position and individual position.
Christianity acknowledges but one way of salvation, that of grace through faith. Masonry rejects this way and substitutes for it salvation by works and character.
No, Freemasonry has no plan of salvation, that is left to the individual Mason’s religion to outline. I’m mildly surprised by this continual “missing” of the point of James’ discussion of faith and works. Faith saves, but faith without works is empty. You do not do works to be saved (as a Christian), but a proof of your salvation is your works or fruits.
Christianity teaches the brotherhood of those who believe in Christ, the communion of saints, the church universal, the one body of Christ. Masonry teaches the brotherhood of Masons and the universal brotherhood of man.
Same error. Big difference between brotherhood in the body of Christ and the brotherhood of all humanity made in the image of God.
Christianity glories in being the one truly universal religion. Masonry would rob Christianity of this glory and appropriate it to itself.
No. Masonry stops at general revelation (that the creation reveals a Creator) and does not get into special revelation such as given in the Bible (or any other writings). This also appears to be forcing a particular definition on the phrase "universal religion", mainly for effect. Last I heard, Christianity considers itself to be the one true religion, but not to be the universal one. After all, I can point out a few people who might just disagree on that. They happen to not be Christians.
Christianity maintains that it is the only true religion. Masonry denies this claim and boasts of being Religion itself.
Freemasonry’s level of religion, including not being a religion, can be considered the one universal one knowable to all men regardless of knowledge of any other special revelation (see Romans 1:20). The most base pagan has access to this level of religious knowledge as well as the most holy Christian saint. What Christianity has is the special revelation given us in the Scriptures. Masonry does not judge that level.
What gets me, I have pointed out a number of things that appear to be either ignorance or lies in these points. So, if you are trying to make a case to me and the first things I read are false, what does that say about the rest of your "case"?