Nicene Creed According to the Scriptures.

Interesting post over at Extreme Theology. Yes, I stole the title.....

Being a member of the Southern Baptists, I've noticed resistance to creeds, confessions and catechisms. Of course, until recently I hadn't noticed a big deal about it. I mean, doesn't everyone know what the chief end of man is? Even if they don't believe it?

I shifted from Presbyterian (conservative orthodox branch) to Southern Baptist for one main reason. When I had some questions, I was quoted catechism by the Presbyterian pastor and shown from Scriptures by the Baptist pastor. Now, there was actually both answers were correct, but there was a tendency to emphasize catechism knowledge over direct Scripture knowledge on the part of the Presbyterians, at least of that time.

Of course, as I'm getting older, I'm finding balance in many things and so, if I was teaching a class to high school seniors or older, I'd use something like the post above to go through and examine why these extraScriptural documents were written.

John Piper on the Prosperity Gospel

A short video.





My only comment would be that while denouncing the "prosperity gospel", "name it and claim it", "blab it and grab it", etc. heresy, that we do not ourselves violate Scripture by calling anyone who quotes the clear blessing verses of the Bible in context a "prosperity preacher". I've seen it more than once and had this accusation directed against myself. Why?

I'm a tither and if you tell me that you "cannot afford" to tithe, I will happily and swiftly tell you that when you "cannot afford to" is the time when you can least afford not to tithe. To the Pharisaical heretic hunters, that is enough, I'm guilty and should be put to the Inquisition with themselves as Inquistors of the Faith.

God has not blessed me with a BMW, but I have had blessings in my life. I don't run around in a fancy suit with a fat wallet, but I've never had need to go hungry or even do without many small luxuries. My checking account isn't huge, but everytime something "fun" happens that requires some money to fix, it is there. I may have to go out and work for that money, but right on time, the opportunity for the cash I needed is there.

For my recent trip to Africa, it looked like some extra cash would have to come out of the savings account, but <*pop*> in the last two days before I left came two decent sized donations that closed the loop. Right on time and right on expense as I found when I got back. Note that this doesn't count the money we had already committed out of pocket for the trip.

Of course, this didn't say that everything was cake and ice cream, simply that God takes care of His own children. I've felt the rod more than once and I'm probably going to feel it again before I'm done (or, if you prefer, He is done with me, same thing though).

Listen to entire sermon.

On Controversy

Just a little something I found through J D Greear's blog on the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's website that I found interesting reading. Enjoy.

New Horizons

On Controversy

John Newton

Editor's note: A minister, about to write an article criticizing a fellow minister for his lack of orthodoxy, wrote to John Newton of his intention. Newton replied as follows:

Dear Sir,

As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with a natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle; but I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a great coat of mail; such armor, that you need not complain, as David did of Saul's, that it will be more cumbersome than useful; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great magazine provided for the Christian soldier, the Word of God. I take it for granted that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For method's sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

Consider Your Opponent

As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord's teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write.

If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: "Deal gently with him for my sake." The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever.

But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit), he is a more proper object of your compassion than of your anger. Alas! "He knows not what he does." But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his.

Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, they who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy: but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose. "If peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth." If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling blocks in the way of the blind or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their principles, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

Consider the Public

By printing, you will appeal to the public; where your readers may be ranged under three divisions: First, such as differ from you in principle. Concerning these I may refer you to what I have already said. Though you have your eye upon one person chiefly, there are many like-minded with him; and the same reasoning will hold, whether as to one or to a million.

There will be likewise many who pay too little regard to religion, to have any settled system of their own, and yet are preengaged in favor of those sentiments which are at least repugnant to the good opinion men naturally have of themselves. These are very incompetent judges of doctrine; but they can form a tolerable judgment of a writer's spirit. They know that meekness, humility, and love are the characteristics of a Christian temper; and though they affect to treat the doctrines of grace as mere notions and speculations, which, supposing they adopted them, would have no salutary influence upon their conduct; yet from us, who profess these principles, they always expect such dispositions as correspond with the precepts of the gospel. They are quick-sighted to discern when we deviate from such a spirit, and avail themselves of it to justify their contempt of our arguments. The scriptural maxim, that "the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God," is verified by daily observation. If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn, we may think we are doing service of the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit. The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual; arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address, as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not, we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth's sake; if we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer; and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions.

You will have a third class of readers, who, being of your own sentiments, will readily approve of what you advance, and may be further established and confirmed in their views of the Scripture doctrines, by a clear and masterly elucidation of your subject. You may be instrumental to their edification if the law of kindness as well as of truth regulates your pen, otherwise you may do them harm. There is a principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God.

I readily believe that the leading points of Arminianism spring from and are nourished by the pride of the human heart; but I should be glad if the reverse were always true; and that to embrace what are called the Calvinistic doctrines was an infallible token of a humble mind. I think I have known some Arminians, that is, persons who for want of a clearer light, have been afraid of receiving the doctrines of free grace, who yet have given evidence that their hearts were in a degree humbled before the Lord.

And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility, that they are willing in words to debase the creature and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of. Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit.

Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace. Yea, I would add, the best of men are not wholly free from this leaven; and therefore are too apt to be pleased with such representations as hold up our adversaries to ridicule, and by consequence flatter our own superior judgments. Controversies, for the most part, are so managed as to indulge rather than to repress his wrong disposition; and therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince, and puff up those whom they should edify. I hope your performance will savor of a spirit of true humility, and be a means of promoting it in others.

Consider Yourself

This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient they appear to be so in our own day, when errors abound on all sides and every truth of the gospel is either directly denied or grossly misrepresented.

And yet we find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry, contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which are at most but of a secondary value. This shows, that if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made?

Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you; he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers which are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who "when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not." This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, "not rendering railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called." The wisdom that is from above is not only pure, but peaceable and gentle; and the want of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors.

If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth, therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord of hosts, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.

Reprinted from The Works of John Newton, Letter XIX "On Controversy." Reprinted from New Horizons, October 2002.

Return to Formatted Page

Copyright © 2009, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. All Rights Reserved.

A Case of Eisegesis

UPDATE: 13 April 2011, once again NAMB decided to move their links around. Maybe if someone wants to ask about wasting money by the SBC, maybe they should check on this shuffling of what are supposed to be static pages.

If you go look here on one of the NAMB's websites, you find one of those most interesting relics of the dark side of the conservative resurgence. IMO, I think it comes from the unfortunate Dominionist elements involved and the political need for the other more orthodox conservatives to placate them. There is always a problem when expediency shows up in the church.

Other factors include heretic hunters (a.k.a. - wannabe "Inquistors of the Faith"), the gullible and those that want (despite the Baptist tradition) to suppress the priesthood of the believer.

This little "chart" uses eisegesis (the reading of something into Scripture or any other text to prove a certain point) based on several falsehoods to "make the point". Although there are the usual antimasonic problems that make them sound like they are lightweight antiChristians, that will be skipped mostly and I'm going to explore the direct problems with it.

The First Comparison: GOD

Well, since Freemasonry does not judge between any special revelation and has no "worship" of any deity, although respect and reverence are given to the Creator of creation. Again, this is the level of knowledge of God that all men have access to, known as the natural revelation. The rituals are morality plays set in different formats that are not "worship" in the sense the NAMB is trying to push here. Oh, somebody might be "offended". True, but it boggles my mind that a group claiming to be conservative Christian would prefer to use the liberal "thou shalt not give offense" method instead of education on the issues, especially since some of those names used for "pagan gods" that NAMB claims is glorifying are actually titles. Some of them were even used as titles for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Bottom Line: Freemasonry does not sanction worship of any specific deity, it is not a church. NAMB chooses a hierarchical type of approach by claiming evil and banning instead of educating.

The Second Comparison: OATHS

Christians should take all oaths seriously and not give any oaths rashly.

Well, this part NAMB got right, the problem is that they have not made the case that the obligations are "rash" oaths. They do claim they are excessive, but that is why this is a case of eisegesis since that is purely projection by the part of the interpreter here, there is no Scriptural line drawn. I do have to thank the NAMB for this subject though, because through it I learned a whole lot more about taking of oaths by Christians, including the fact that both Paul and Jesus swore oaths.

Bottom Line: Bogus call by the NAMB. The only way this accusation works is when you hold to the (incorrect!) position that no Christian should ever swear any sort of oath, which then condemns so many military, jurists, peace officers, etc. that it isn't even funny.

The Third Comparison: JESUS CHRIST

Amazingly enough, it seems that the NAMB figured out that Freemasonry isn't Christianity, then got upset about it. I'm beginning to wonder about the purpose. After all, when the Roman Catholic Church got upset about the loss of revenue and control, they started up the Knights of Columbus, so maybe the SBC should start up the Fraternal Order of Baptist Born Again Men. After all, that way you would actually have a Christian fraternity then that could be legitimately carped about over its interpretation of Jesus.

Yes, this falls into the trap of assuming that Freemasonry is more than it is. It also avoids the fact that all of these writings they natter on about are purely optional reading. A number of them do give pagan and occult concepts, but as information, which any Mason is free to disagree with and, in fact, should disagree with if it is contrary to his religious beliefs. While the NAMB is correct that Christianity does teach the uniqueness of Christ, the fact that the NAMB denies the evidence of messianic movements in many of the world's past and current religions and confuses the non-sectarian philosophical discussion by Pike with some kind of statement of beliefs undercuts their case yet again.

Bottom Line: Yet more stretching that falls short, woeful ignorance and again a retreat from the need to educate. The SBC wants a Great Commission Resurgence, but they still don't want to educate. Why? Are they trying to grow Christians or mushrooms?

The Fourth Comparison: SALVATION BY WORKS

Some religions require salvation by works, Christianity does not. However, the doing of works as a fruit of being saved is a strong thread in Christianity. As usual for the antimason, one book is conspicuously absent from the list of verses on the right side of the chart on the NAMB website:

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:17-18)

Works don't save a Christian, but a Christian saved by grace will be doing works. Works as either a requirement or result of salvation cross all the major religions in one form or another. Well, I think Christianity is the only one that calls them a result, but I might be wrong about some of the karma/reincarnation religions. Of course, I'm not quite clear about the problem with the quote from Pike, at least the first portion. If you don't have faith in Christ, do not repent and do not show the signs of the Spirit re-forming you, then the Redeemer's (Christ's) death was for nothing, you are not saved. You must have that faith and repentance to benefit from His sacrifice and it will result in changing you.

Bottom Line: Weak, majorly so. Oh noes! "Some" may get some false hope from works, but I think the NAMB and SBC would be a bit better off looking for those that are being taught a works based theology in their own churches, no matter what lip service is being paid to grace. The saddest and most pitiful part of this point is that the NAMB is advocating, like all antimasons who claim to be Christian, adding a work to grace. The work of a Mason leaving Freemasonry for salvation. Sad.

The Fifth Comparison: INCLUSIVISM

Freemasonry teaches no way to salvation. Candidates and members are specifically and repeatedly told that since Masonry makes no distinctions between any special revelation (Bible, Koran, Torah, Vedas, etc.), their salvation depends on what their religious beliefs teach them, NOT Freemasonry. Which lets the air out of this one real fast.

Of course, once again Pike is cited (without dealing with the clear statement in his works and Hutchen's condensed version that these are all optional and anyone can disagree with them) and it is interpreted in the way the writer wants it to be. So, of course!, it is all about knowing the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the Testimony of the Holy Spirit! It just cannot be speaking of the intellectual level of thought where man in his finite wisdom can discern from the creation the nature of the Creator, can it? Why not? It is obviously how Pike intended it.

Bottom Line: Piled higher and deeper. You know why this is atheist sounding fodder? Because if you just assume that there is no God, there is no Christ, the Bible is errant, etc.; then regardless of any evidence to the contrary, you will force fit your interpretation into an antiChristian one. Which is exactly what this little "comparison" has done. Despite the railing about "blasphemous" comparisons of Christ with pagan messianic figures, what the NAMB has done is lower the level of rational scholarship to the point where if it was accepted anywhere but in their little pandering critiques of Freemasonry, it would mean that a honest person would have to accept the "pagan Christs" as reality when using the same standards of scholarship.

Why not just educate for real instead of worrying about propagandizing for agendas? While the SBC is trying on the GCR and I see much good in it, if the SBC fails to fix its education problem, then the GCR will just be another money and time wasting effort. If the SBC does choose to educate, then it will have its GCR, whether it wants it or not.

They are without excuse

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Psalms 19:1-4a)

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:20)


"The grave error in a technically directed cultural drive is that it sees its highest goal in the possibility of achieving an alteration of Nature. It hopes to set itself in the place of God, so that it may force upon the divine will some petty conventions of its dust-born mind.” Erwin Schrodinger


The destiny of mankind is not decided by material computation. When great causes are on the move in the world, stirring all men’s souls, drawing them from their firesides, casting aside comfort, wealth and the pursuit of happiness in response to impulses at once awe-striking and irresistible, we learn that we are spirits, not animals, and that something is going on in space and time, and beyond space and time, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty. Winston Churchill, The Old Lion, Rochester, NY, 1941

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Werner Heisenberg

“Science and religion are very much alike. Both are imaginative and creative aspects of the human mind. The appearance of a conflict is a result of ignorance.

We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.” John Eccles

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:21-23)

Something I have never been able to understand was how people could deny that there is a Creator. Even when I was straying, the knowledge was there. I think here we see the greatest depravity of Mankind, that they would deny God and try to usurp Him. The greatest thinkers throughout history have always acknowledged a Creator, even if they were not Jewish or Christian. Even now, those that deny God by making a god of science must believe on totally blind faith that miraculous happenings for which the deniers have no proof happened in the past. Miracles so great that they make a six day creation a few thousand years ago by a Creator sound simpler. I don't know what I can do for them.


I can do what He has told me to do in Scriptures, but I also know I cannot do anything for them, only He can. How to make them see? Have I gone too far in my search for growth? I know that even if I am deluded as to my salvation and He judges me unworthy and a false follower that He will know not, that His judgement will be just and my condemnation will be fitting. Of course, my knowing that bases itself on knowing that He is my Lord and Savior and that I am nothing without Him to guide me.


But I fail so much. I try so much and let distractions interfere with me.


Part of this came from rereading an old favorite science fiction book and remembering how much people want to believe in those fantasies. Those who believe them will stay lost, because they believe in that bright and shining future, even though it is flawed by human failures and faults. Logically, if they believe in that, then Christianity is lost to them, because for those futures to occur as they have been written in stories, then Christianity would have to be false. These believers still dream and hope, as I did once, for the outward reach and growth of these fantasies.


They cannot see as I have seen, the turning inward, inward of all human cultures and societies in the last decades. The retreat had started before the pinnacle of the outreach was accomplished. By the time we had reached the Moon, our culture was turning away. Some of the later writers knew that and postulated wildcat entrepreneurs who forced Mankind back into space, but there are none like that. Even the hard science stories are disappearing as over the years more and more shelf space in the book stores' "Science Fiction & Fantasy" section have been taken up by escapist science and romantic fantasies.


I see the symptoms of this throughout our Western culture as people put their faith in all kinds of idols and refuse to turn to Him who is their salvation.



Lord help them.


Lord help us.


Lord help me.

How Do You Fight the Lies...

...from those who claim to be Christian? As can be noted in the brief study I did on Bearing False Witness, breaking this particular commandment is linked to a number of other problems. It looks like this can be said of other commandments also, but when we look at the fruits of those who claim to be Christian (our only standard to discern a true Brother in Christ), if this one pops up, then I've seen that the others will follow. After all, I could make the case for the key commandment being the first one, but how can I tell if someone has some other god before God? Only by their fruits.

I was reading some of John Piper's work after seeing a missions video on youtube that was linked to his quote about missions: "Go, Send or Disobey." While exploring his website, I did what I do from time to time when I find a new preacher, I searched for "Freemasonry" and "Masonry". There was only one hit on the entire site which from my research indicates there is probably something from someone else. I've found that solid, orthodox, reformed preachers tend to have nothing or one item from someone else. For some reason, Freemasonry isn't on their radar screens.

So we find here. My search only found one document from July 21, 1989(!) with the following quote:

33. Ron Carlson, an expert in cults, ate lunch with me and others one day and spoke of the amazing inroads of the Masonic Lodge in America. He has made a tape exposing the cultic, Eastern, counter-Christian elements of the Lodge. Fifteen thousand men have left the Lodge because of this tape. Ron has been threatened. He said 40 percent of Southern Baptist pastors belong to the Lodge. The whole elder board at a well-known Twin Cities Presbyterian church belonged to the Masons at one time recently. When you join you must take an oath that you will slit your throat before revealing the secrets of the Lodge. The IRS investigated recently and discovered that none of the money raised by the circuses went for the children’s hospitals. The red Fez with the Islamic sword and crescent is based on the bloody slaughter of 10,000 Christians by Muslims in the city of Fez. Norman Vincent Peale, who is high up in the Masonic order, told Ron that Masonry is the most important thing in his life. One board chairman in the Twin Cities who railed at Ron answered his question of why he should be accepted into heaven by saying, “I guess I’ll say I was a good Mason.” How vigilant we must be about the subtlety of sin and error.

So, what do we really have here?

1. The source is "Ron Carlson, an expert in cults." Ok, the first line would be that since Freemasonry isn't a cult, he doesn't know jack about it. Unfortunately, as we will see, it may sound like a snippy joke, but it is actually the just the simple truth.
2. Next we have "amazing inroads of the Masonic Lodge in America". Uh, like every single other secular fraternal organization in America, we have a steadily declining membership. Even when I've seen a local "boom" in new members, it is merely a slowing of the rate of decrease.
3. Next, "He (Carlson) has made a tape exposing...". I've heard recordings of Mr. Carlson's presentations at conferences. He is called on to speak against Freemasonry. Within a few minutes, despite this talk supposedly being the "real deal" about Masonry, Mr. Carlson will be telling people about "resources" available for sale on the back table. I gues this would qualify this tape as being the "real real deal".
4. "cultic": Not by any definition either ancient or modern. The only basis for this remains the constant stretch by these antimasons who claim to be Christians that Freemasonry is a religion. This despite the massive witness of centuries of Masons that Masonry is NOT a religion. Oh, we are all just Satanists anyway, right?
5. "Eastern": Oh wow. Care to comment on the Oriental nature of the people that produced the Bible? Now, if this is a "modern" pop definition of Eastern (i.e. slant eyed folks), then it is a laugh. I don't think you will find the corporate group state mentality in Freemasonry that you will find there, or even in the Bible where one Man was chosen to die for the good of the state.
6. "counter-Christian": How is it "counter"? I know of nothing in Masonry that is against ("counter") Christianity. Unless it is the fact that this secular fraternity chooses not to whole-heartedly endorse Christianity as the one, true faith. Of course, then it wouldn't be secular, would it? It wouldn't be Freemasonry either.
   
7. "15,000 men have left the Lodge because of this tape". Really? Does Mr. Carlson have this in writing? I doubt it. Of course, having worked the phones to call older brothers who are about to lose their membership for not paying their dues (wait, isn't this a cult, you know, HARD to get out of?), I'm quite aware of one problem among my older Masonic brethren, especially if they are also my Christian brethren. When I call and let them know that if they are in distress economically that we can provide for them, I find them politely thanking me and requesting that we don't. Why? Is this the Great Carlson AntiMasonic Tape at work!?! Maybe. The reason these older Christian and Masonic brothers are letting their dues lapse is that they are old, no longer active and are tired of being harassed by their kids and preachers who are listening to Mr. Carlson's or Mr. Ankerberg's lies. Remember what I said about bearing false witness leading to other sins? Here, the idea of honoring they father and mother or respect for the elder ones in the church go >poof!<
8. "Ron had been threatened." By who? The last time you had a case of that was the Morgan Affair in the early 1800s. Oh wait, bearing false witness and dividing the church? Scripture has somewhat to say about that, but I don't think it is a mere threat.
9. "40% of SB preachers/Presbyterian Church". The first is a known lie, pushed by Dr. Holly among all his other ones. As for the other, if true, so what?
   
10. "take an oath to slit your throat". Old lie, I did not do so, have not heard of anyone else doing so and after sitting in many jurisdictions both in the USA and overseas for degrees, I've not observed any oath calling for slitting your own throat.
    
11. IRS and the Shrine. I'm not aware of anything back then, but I am aware, even though I'm no longer a Shriner, that an internal investigation is ongoing into some abuses by members of a subgroup of Shriners. If this is true (and it looks like it is), then the Shriners involved will probably end up no longer Masons as well as no longer Shriners.
    
12. The Red Fez lie: I'll only cover the first fact on this one. The city of Fez was founded by the Muslim sultan who conquered the area from pagans (although there may have been some Christians there) and the hat known as the "fez" for the city didn't exist until the next sultan built up the city of Fez to attract more commerce to it. Oops! BTW, the currently fashionable number and the one I've always heard was 50,000 Christians, not the mere 10,000 of Mr. Carlson's myth.
    
13. Norman Vincent Peale: Oh, this is a personal testimony (how about two or three witnesses?) by Mr. Carlson.
    
14. "I was a good Mason." See #13 above.
15. "How vigilant we must be about the subtlety of sin and error." Amen Brother Piper, Amen. I suggest you start with Mr. Carlson. Over half of the points above are lies, the rest appear to have no evidence except for Mr. Carlson's personal testimony and Mr. Carlson appears to use his conference appearances as live infomercials for his products. I find his fruit to be a bit dubious.

Fortunately, Mr. Piper most definitely appears to be only guilty of trusting someone who is supposed to be of good report.

Election

This is something from C. H. Spurgeon's Morning & Evening devotionals for the evening of 29 July.

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.” - John 6:37

This declaration involves the doctrine of election: there are some whom the Father gave to Christ. It involves the doctrine of effectual calling: these who are given must and shall come; however stoutly they may set themselves against it, yet they shall be brought out of darkness into God’s marvellous light. It teaches us the indispensable necessity of faith; for even those who are given to Christ are not saved except they come to Jesus. Even they must come, for there is no other way to heaven but by the door, Christ Jesus. All that the Father gives to our Redeemer must come to him, therefore none can come to heaven except they come to Christ.
Oh! the power and majesty which rest in the words “shall come.” He does not say they have power to come, nor they may come if they will, but they “shall come.” The Lord Jesus doth by his messengers, his word, and his Spirit, sweetly and graciously compel men to come in that they may eat of his marriage supper; and this he does, not by any violation of the free agency of man, but by the power of his grace. I may exercise power over another man’s will, and yet that other man’s will may be perfectly free, because the constraint is exercised in a manner accordant with the laws of the human mind. Jehovah Jesus knows how, by irresistible arguments addressed to the understanding, by mighty reasons appealing to the affections, and by the mysterious influence of his Holy Spirit operating upon all the powers and passions of the soul, so to subdue the whole man, that whereas he was once rebellious, he yields cheerfully to his government, subdued by sovereign love. But how shall those be known whom God hath chosen? By this result: that they do willingly and joyfully accept Christ, and come to him with simple and unfeigned faith, resting upon him as all their salvation and all their desire. Reader, have you thus come to Jesus?

From Scripture: Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper. (Luke 14:16-24)

Yes, we have a choice, but can we choose without the Spirit working on us? No, we cannot. Wait, isn't this unfair, that some are chosen and some are not? No, because God in His sovereign knowledge knows those who will fulfill His purposes and those who will not and does all things according to His glory and for His purposes.

Antimasonic junk part 2

A little item that can be found here. It is from Hank Hanegraaff speaking officially from his position as the head of CRI ministry. So, here we go again with the original being in bold:

IS MASONRY OCCULTIC?

Mysterious symbols. Secret rites. Hidden teachings. Is this an accurate portrayal of what Freemasonry is all about? Is Masonry really occultic?

With close to 34,000 lodges around the globe and a membership numbering upwards of 6 million, it is obvious why the Encyclopedia Britannica would dub Freemasonry as the largest world-wide secret society. But just because something is secret does not necessarily mean that it’s occultic. In fact, the majority of Freemasons contend that their organization has no occultic elements whatsoever. However, the deeper we dig into the recesses of Masonic teaching, the more reprehensible the picture becomes.

Christian author John Weldon lists five ways in which Freemasonry fosters occultic involvement among its members: First, Freemasonry supports the now-popular New Age dictum that man houses within himself unlimited power that can be unlocked using specific procedures. Second, Freemasonry espouses a philosophy and a system of symbols which bear a striking resemblance to many of the occultic arts — for example kabbalism, Rosicrucianism, and hermetic philosophy. Third, Freemasonry encourages its members to discover the deeper significance (or “esoteric truths”) lying beneath its ceremonies and symbols. Fourth, Freemasonry promotes the development of altered states of consciousness, an exercise rooted in mysticism. Finally, a number of Masons regard their organization as the vehicle that will lead the world into an age of occultic enlightenment.

“Why are so many Masons unaware of this side of Freemasonry?,” one may well ask. The reason is that a large portion of Masons seldom strive to advance beyond the initial ranks or degrees offered within their organization. But as one progresses to higher degrees, more and more details about the underlying foundations of Masonic ideology are gradually revealed, including its occultic dimensions. It is therefore imperative that we warn others about the dangers brewing beneath the surface of the Masonic Lodge.

On Masonry and the occult, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

Yet more chicken puckey. Same crappy sources that promote the usual lies, but let’s check on Hank’s five points:

1) Really, news to me, but it is interesting how antimasons have so penetrated the “secrets” of Freemasonry that they can always manage to teach something new to Masons about Masonry.

2) Striking or vague? Yes, some symbols are common, but then the cross itself has some pagan interpretations and this says what about the Christian interpretation?

3) News to me, as usual. This one can be considered as having a grain of truth though. There is some urging to think on the meaning of certain symbols, but the meanings are explained, not the attempted New Age link (it was Satanic in earlier decades). For example, the compasses (of Square & Compasses fame) are a symbol to remind Masons to circumscribe their actions and keep their passions within due bounds. Definitely not New Age meditations for esoteric meaning stuff.

4) News to me, really never heard of this.

5) Okay, some “number of Masons” believe this. Since all the secrets are open to the dedicated antimason (otherwise they couldn’t make their pronouncements with any authority), what number? Can it be stated as a percentage or raw number? Can we get an estimate closer than one to some millions? I doubt it, I'm familiar with this kind of argument, it comes from fundy athiests and other lightweights.

Of course, the usual ending of how sincere, devoted Christians, even theologians, ministers and Christian apologists, men of intellectual attainment and spiritual discernment stay members of Freemasonry. How can this be? AHA! They are too stupid and/or ignorant to notice this “problem” with Masonry, even though they are objectively far better qualified than the antiMason is to discern these issues. Oh yeah, if the Mason doesn’t accept this without question, then he just hasn’t “gone far enough” in the degree system. That’s it, case closed. So my question would be: Is it any wonder that the Church today finds itself confused, disoriented and riddled with heresy and heretical teachings?

Stumbling Blocks

Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. (Romans 14:13)

But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. (Romans 14:15) For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. (Romans 14:20-21)

The entire chapter of Romans 14 is in view here for context, as well as other portions of Scripture (like 1 Corinthians 8). Romans 14 stands up here because it directly discusses the issues between "strong" and "weak" Christians. I've heard Romans 14 referred to more than once as the "law about doubtful things" since it concerns practices and/or beliefs among Christians that are not salvation issues and not otherwise addressed in Scripture.

The first point is that such things are to be left to Christian charity (love) since they do not touch on salvation, God will judge (verses 4 & 12). The second is that the "strong" are not to rub the noses of the "weak" into it (verses 3 & 10). The third is that the "weak" are not to judge the "strong". (verses 3 & 10).

The first point is fairly straightforward, since one of the things that make something doubtful is that there is no direct evidence of bad "fruit" from practice/belief. To determine otherwise and declare it to be something other than doubtful puts the one who declares it in the position of usurping something God Himself has claimed and expressly denied mankind, namely the ability to read the heart of the person.

The second point is so that people new or weak in their faith not be driven away or forced to do things that their conscience does not permit them to do. If you want to give up something for Lent, go right ahead. I'm not going to be one to tell you that you are just practicing papist traditions. If you feel led to it and are doing it through faith as a memorial, then the blessing you reap will be yours.

The third point serves the same point as the second, since both are to prevent the "strong" and the "weak" from tyrannizing the other and forcing them to act against their consciences. In this case, the "weak" cannot simply wave the "stumblingblock banner" and make the "strong" (for the sake of "unity", of course) conform to the "weak" brethren's practices/beliefs.

Misinterpretation of this subject is one of the largest problems in modern churches, where for the sake of "unity" the second point is emphasized and the third point is ignored. Known as reducing to the lowest common denominator, it stifles the growth of Christians and makes for the "seeker friendly" movement which perverts the Gospel in favor of turning churches into clubs where "felt needs" can be "met" without the "nasty bits" of Scripture. Even in church bodies that haven't turned down that road, you can still find the "politically correct" view that one must never give offense! Excuse me?! Just because someone is offended, we shouldn't mention or "promote" (a buzzword for suppress in many cases) practice X? When we have a Message that is an offense to the wisdom of the world? See how it starts?

I'm going to digress a bit here, because those that know me who might be reading this could get the impression that I consider myself one of the "strong" and not one of the "weak". In some things, I do consider myself "strong" (although I've had that opinion changed before as I've gained more understanding) and in others I know myself to definitely be "weak".

For example, reading Scripture and praying should be (and often are) a joy and pleasure. At times though, they seem to be a burden and not worth doing. So I opt out to a "weak" position of simply doing them by rote, because God says to. Why do I do something that could be considered legalistic or Pharisaical (observing the form without regard to the Spirit)? Because experience has shown me that in these cases, if I wait until the mood strikes, it is a long time in coming and I still feel unfulfilled, but when I follow what God says to do, the joy returns much faster and I learn much more.

Now we can move on to the crux of the matter. When does something that is doubtful become something that makes my brother stumble and therefore something I should refrain from doing?

Here we must discern what the issue is. What is its source? How good are the facts backing the issue up? If the issue is offensive because of pronouncements by people, writings or simply something heard (gossip), then we can evaluate. If the claims of doubtfulness on an issue are based on lies, then just because some Christian claims this issue to be a stumbling block for them, should it be considered so? If something is thought to be un- or anti-Christian because of these lies, can stumbling block status be claimed for it? Should we, as Christians, give into a lie in the interests of "unity"? Does the Gospel of my Lord Jesus Christ need to be "defended" by a lie? Does the Church of Jesus Christ need to be kept "pure" by a lie?

I don't think so. A lie has nothing of the Truth in it and so is contrary to Christianity (1 John 2:21). In fact, following a lie and a liar has been spoken against directly: Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. (John 8:41-47)

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. (Revelation 22:14-15)

Should we, as Christians, when we find a situation like this based on a lie give in to the "offended" ones in a congregation or point out the lie?

If we do give into the lie for the sake of the "offended" ones who are in ignorance of the truth instead of educating them in the truth (perhaps because it is easy that way), then do we put a block in front of the brother who is the one who has the "offensive" issue?

I know, some will say "just go find another church", but I'm one who doesn't believe in that kind of "buffet Christianity". Most especially when I know that the place that I am at is the place where He wants me to be.

Antimasonic junk part 1

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"?

Defending the Gospel: Using Doctrine

Exposing false teachings, correcting understanding and refuting false accusations can be done using Biblical doctrine.

Stephen: Acts 6:8-7:60

Stephen is one of the first deacons and part of what he did was dispute with members of the synagogue of the Libertines (6:8-9). This is an interesting synagogue since the reference to Cilicia (where Tarsus was located) and his appearance later means that this was probably the synagogue Saul was a member of and overseen by the Gamaliel the Pharisee (see Acts 5:34-40), teacher of Paul (see Acts 22:3).

The key verse for this first part is verse 10: And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake. There were two things mentioned, wisdom and Spirit. Spirit we know as Christians, but what is this wisdom? Since Spirit is already mentioned, it isn't the speaking of the Spirit, it must be something else.

After being refuted the Jews paid off people to be false witnesses while seizing and dragging Stephen before the council to be accused of blasphemy. When questioned, Stephen responded with the speech in Acts 7:2-53 in which he summarizes the way Jewish doctrine leads to Christ and how the Jews killed Him like they do all the prophets God sends. (see Luke 20:9-15). Stephen handily refuted not only the original Jews but the council itself. The result?

When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. (Act 7:54)

Then the Jews martyred Stephen for having a vision of the glorified Christ which the Jews rejected since they had already rejected Christ.

So, the source of the wisdom of Stephen? Yes, in the end it is God, but that would be excluded since the Spirit is also mentioned. So it is knowledge of Scripture and the Biblical doctrines contained in it.

Being "attacked" by Satan

One often hears of a believer being "under attack" by Satan. It might be a family, group, church, city, country or denomination. Although it does happen (and I think more frequently than most know), I don't like the term or the claim in regards to a situation, at least as I normally hear it applied to anything other than perfectly smooth sailing in life. Why?

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. (Mark 3:29-30)

Matthew 12:31-32 and Luke 12:10 have similar verses but I find this one the clearest, because it most clearly states that attributing the works of the Spirit to Satan is the unpardonable sin. Remember that God will also correct us and that it is a correction to be borne:

Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee. Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to fear him. (Deuteronomy 8:5-6)

My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
(Proverbs 3:11-12)

And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. (Hebrews 12:5-11)

Is the struggle you face now the Lord chastising you? Is it the Lord strengthening you for further duties down the road? Is it the Spirit working on you for your growth? If yes, then by claiming it as a "Satanic attack", you are skirting closely to blaspheming the Spirit at the very least.

Remember, this isn't to say that Satan isn't attacking you, but don't fall into the habit of blaming Satan for everything that happens to you.

Basic Beliefs

• Inerrancy of the Scriptures -In accordance with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
  

• The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
• The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
• The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
• The authenticity of Christ's miracles
  
• Belief in and waiting for His second coming to judge the world.

That does sum it up, although there may be a lot of details that can be asked about.