Talk given on March 13, 2010 at the Capstone Conference held at Calvary Chapel Salt Lake City.

Leaders among the “restoration churches” have for years been saying that we have no creed/creeds. It appears to me that we have fooled ourselves into believing that if we repeat something often enough and loudly enough sooner or later people will believe it. It’s sort of how creeds are developed in the first place. In other words, if we practice or teach something long enough it will become an “old paths” tradition. Then, if the tradition doesn’t die, it becomes canon law (a creed) and is now a vital enough matter to debate.

Of course not all of us are guilty of accepting all of the creeds that will be here mentioned. So we may pick and choose those of which we are guilty of obeying and enforcing. Not all of the creeds “we” have sired will be here mentioned for two main reasons: 1) I can’t recall them all, 2) Lack of space and/or literary license from brother Charles. Now, if your kindness, dear readers, will allow, I shall launch into my laundry list of ecclesiastical creedalisms developed over myriad of decades of institutional evolution. These are not necessarily listed in order of importance.

First is the matter of the liturgical (orthodox) prayer of the churches of Christ. Our forms and expressions of worship can easily become crystalized. Involved in our prayer creed is the business of who to address. One must direct his prayer to God the Father and to Him alone; never the God the Son, Jesus Christ. Forget that we have a biblical example of Stephen praying directly to Christ. Forget that Jesus is our intermediary to the Father (can you imagine a client never getting to talk to his attorney?). Forget that some may occasionally desire to slip in a small, “I love you, dear Jesus, for what you did for me!”

Not only must we pray exclusively to the Father and never utter a word to Christ or the Holy Spirit (who also mediates on our behalf), but we must at home juncture within the prayer speak the words, “In Jesus’ name.” It is preferable to say this at the closing in a public prayer so that the congregants may Amen in agreement without distress.

Oh, I almost forgot, there is the matter of prayer “language” to the ultra orthodox. Majestic pronouns are often preferred over other, less regal, words (thee, thou, and thy over you and your). Somehow these pronouns are able to convey respect and humility to God in spite of the fact that there were no royal pronouns in the biblical languages. To add to this dilemma, there are also preferred cliche expressions to top things off (of course I try to avoid cliches like the plague. Expressions such as: 1) Guide, guard and direct, 2) Ready recollection, 3) Molestation, 4) Another portion of thy word, 5) Sick and afflicted, 6) Next appointed time, 7) Respective places of abode, et al.

Aside from the matter of “holy” pronouns and catch phrases is the business of regressing into Elizabethan English to speak to deity. Joseph Smith used this technique when he penned his Book of Mormon and “Inspired” version of the Bible. He assumed that if he wrote, “And it came to pass” some 2,000 times that the story would have an obvious ring of divinity. He, as we, used phrases with ancient words like wouldst and couldst and hast and loveth and coveteth. Really brethren, is a prayer more sincere if we say, “Holy Father, we loveth thee and coveteth thy bountiful grace” instead of”Dear Lord, we love you and ask for your generous mercy?” Besides, I tho’t coveting was a sin.

Second is the matter of the Lord’s Supper only to be taken on the first day of the week. If it’s taken any other time it’s got to be wrong. Forget that Christ instituted it on a “Thursday” (Thor’s day by our calendar) evening. Forget that there is no direct command found anywhere in the New Testament that requires Sunday (Sun Day) only observance. Forget that Jesus said, “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup.” Forget that in Acts 2 the disciples “broke bread” daily. We have legislated a creed (or simply held on to a vestage of Romish theocracy as many denominations unwittingly did) that demands the communion of our Lord to be experienced/enjoyed only on one day of the week every week.

Third is the creed of unfermented wine. That’s right. Jesus turned water into Welch’s grape juice. Alcoholic wine was not and “cannot” be used for the Lord’s Supper, period. (As fascinating as it seems, there is even a group in our fractured movement that believes only “fermented” wine can be used.) Who says so? Keepers of the creeds, that’s who. Forget that the Corinthian brethren got drunk on Lord’s Supper wine. Forget the prohibition to elders not to be given to much wine (why prohibit the consumption of harmless juice?). This scribe wrote a simple essay on the Lord’s Supper several years back and made the “mistake” of concluding that the fermentation, or lack thereof, of the communion wine was a matter of personal preference or circumstances. Letters poured in from both sides. Letters of disgust at my blatant liberalism. Yes, I’m a teetotaler, but our teetotaling mentality has foisted upon us another creed.

Fourth is the creed of unleavened bread. If the wine must be pure then it follows that the bread must be pure. Forget that unleavened bread was present at the time Jesus originated the Lord’s Supper because it was the only bread available at the moment because of the Passover feast just commemorated by Christ and His disciples. Forget that there is no command to use unleavened bread exclusively anywhere in New Testament scripture. If one doesn’t think we are hard line about such matters then attempt the use of fermented wine and store bought bread in most of our services.

Fifth is the matter of what form our worship singing will take. Form becoming tradition becoming creed again! This position (creed) is that all singing must be congregational (everyone singing at one time). There is no room for quartet or chorus (too much like a choir and everybody knows choirs are sinful) singing. There is no quarter for solos even though we sit mute while a paid orator (usually) tells us (in solo) what we want to hear but somehow we know that nobody has the right to sing (solo) what we want to hear.

Forget the fact that the New Testament is practically silent about the “form” of our singing and rather focuses upon purpose and intent (“with the spirit and understanding”). Forget the fact that Paul said of a group of Christians that each one had a song. Forget that many of our congregational songs have alto and soprano and bass leads that are sung while the rest remain attentive but silent. Who knows how much damage this one narrow minded creed has done to our creativity in developing songs and musical praise to God. And where is the scripture found for such a hard line position? Right next to the one that says we can sing in four part harmony.

Sixth is the matter of elders not needing to answer to the flock but the flock having to answer to the elders. This creed is directly tied to the concept of elders comprising an “eldership” which is more or less a “boat” that carries a decision making board of directors (see Bob West’s “I’ve Learned Better” in The Examiner, Sept. 1988). Forget that elders aren’t elders without the members first desiring and acknowledging such. Forget that elders are to be shepherds and sheep feeders rather than Lords and sheep herders. Most of the trauma concerning church leadership can be directly traced to elder-ships that suppose that somehow or other such servants are endowed with power to rule and reign over institutions called churches. Jesus died for indigents, not for institutions!

Seventh is the creed that worship consists of five (count’em) acts to be done in an assembly hall (usually an expensive edifice that helps maintain the institutional image). Five acts, mind you, is what worship is all about. And usually they must be done within the framework of an opening prayer (which begins worship) and a closing prayer (which ends worship).

This is one reason we have group singing (even choirs) after the dismissal prayer. You see, this makes it all scriptural. It is against our creed that “listening” is an item (act) of worship during singing. Forget that worship is an expression of the heart. Forget that there is no command to perform (engage in) five items of worship.

The five acts of worship, as if anyone would forget, include: 1) Prayer, 2) Lord’s Supper, 3) Money giving, 4) Singing, 5) And most important of all, a religious speech (usually by a professional lecturer) delivered to the very ones who provide his salary. That’s it, folks! Worship! Forget the bedtime Bible stories told by a loving mother to her little ones. Forget the hard work father does to provide for his family (and his tithe). Forget hospital visits, death sympathies, kind words of encouragement and letters to the lonely. There are only five items of worship.

Sadly, we do have an unmentionable “sixth item” of worship which has not yet received full canonical acceptance, namely, the announcements. Yet Goad is serious in making the point that even announcements can be very worshipful and vital to a family of God’s worshippers. So can foyer holy hugs and kisses.

Before I continue, I can hear some of you now. Please love me in spite of my mouth/pen. I love you all. Jesus loves us all. We be brethren because of Christ and not because of unanimity of opinion. As verbal as I am, I am trying to be brief. Every one of these creeds could be a ten page essay. So at least be grateful for my condensation of thoughts. That always leaves more room for ambiguity and misunderstanding, but I would love to hear from all who wish to write in response, whether in agreement or to set me straight.

Eighth is the creedal matter of how we interpret the scriptures. In a nutshell our modus operandi in such areas is simply: 1) Direct command, 2) Apostolic example, 3) Necessarily inference. This “necessary inference” is the one that has gotten us into big trouble throughout the years. Just who determines what is necessarily inferred for another person? If we were Catholics then it would be easy to answer that question. Again, this might assist us in understanding why we have developed elderships. They determine these matters.

Anyway, this three-pronged creed is an exegetical tool of understanding “who said what to whom when” and “is it binding for me?” Of course, there is no scripture that says this is how we define divine truth for the ages, but you couldn’t prove that by the decibels and syllogisms of some of our better known keepers of truth. Tools (formuli) to assist in understanding God’s word ought never to become ends in themselves. We all have differing vantage points from which we view scripture. The command-example-inference approach has its strengths and its weaknesses.

Not to undermine a help in understanding but to enable us to see that that is all it is, a tool, I mention just a few weaknesses. Our fellowship has loosed direct commands (holy kisses & feet washing for examples) and has bound inferences (Sunday only Lord’s Supper, congregation accapella singing for examples). I could list several examples but that is not my point. (I’d be delighted to hear from those with lists where we have inadvertantly or on purpose bound and loosed in such fashion.) My point is this, there are myriad ways for truth seekers to come to a knowledge of truth. I use one rule of interpretation that works for me better than any other. I’d be glad to share it. But I do not hide behind it as though it is an inspired creed revealed from God.

Ninth in our list of creeds is the one that says women can’t serve in a public way without usurping men’s authority. Let me give you an example. A woman can’t serve the Lord’s Supper emblems in assembly. I won’t bore you with other examples. This is sufficient. Forget that a woman can prepare emblems before the “worship begins” and bring them to the table. Forget that she can cook and serve at home without usurping her husband’s authority. Forget that serving has nothing to do with usurping in the first place. She can’t do it! Why? It violates this feminine creed.

There’s more. A ten year old boy who has just been baptized can pass the emblems up and down the church aisle, but a saintly seventy year old elder’s wife cannot. Get this. A woman can pass the emblems from side to side while sitting in the pew, but she can’t pass them up and down the aisle. And she had better be careful about standing up when she passes from side to side. Silly? You bet it is.

We have unknowingly (I’m being charitable) stifled the spiritual growth of countless female disciples by our insensitive and creedal approach that says to women, “Shut up and be quiet.” Please don’t 1,000 watch dogs write to me and remind me to read 1 Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2. I already have. But my example has nothing to do with those passages in their context (spiritual gifts in assembly and men able to pray “everywhere” tho’ we have loosed the matter of holding up holy hands in that passage).

Tenth is the creed that fellowship implies (confirms) consent of the error of those we fellowship. Nonsense! I could fellowship the pope himself in helping rescue a beggar from his plight. That would not mean I accepted Roman Catholicism or Papal infallibility. Fellowship is a mutual sharing and joint participation. It is not a pot luck. It does not prove endorsement or error. If we could fellowship only those who fully agree with us on every doctrinal matter we’d all be lonely souls indeed. So simple and yet we miss it. We’ve been programmed and conditioned to accept ideas we haven’t even prayed over or thought through to their logical conclusions.

Eleventh is the implied creed that in order for a church to grow it must acquire an edifice and secure a paid edifier. That’s correct. To start a church one must get some land, build a building, put the sheep in debt for years, hire a F.T.P.G.P. then we’re in business. Somebody forgot to tell Peter, James and John about such methods. The Examiner has dealt so thoroughly with this idea that I’ll be quiet, such a task as it is.

Twelfth is the belief that the genuinely restored church of the first century A.D. is one that can be traced to a pioneer American religious movement. Religious movements can be productive when they force us to think ourselves out of indifference and creeds and point us back to the source of life. Yet we have a way of canonizing our restorationists.

Campbell no more had a monopoly on truth and understanding than did Luther in his time. We ought to be grateful for the contributions of both of these men. But to say, “Campbell’s movement has it!” or “Luther’s movement has it!” is a big mistake. Christ has it. Christ is it! We must learn to stop funneling our thinking through movements and men and focus on what makes us children of God.

Thirteenth is the notion that faithful preachers of the gospel are men graduated from our schools. True, Jesus operated a preacher training school for three years. But, again I say, nobody (body of teachers especially) has a monopoly on truth and faithfulness, not even us.

Fourteenth is the unwritten (I’ve even seen it in print) creed that deacons handle physical matters and elders decide on spiritual affairs. Forget that to be a true servant (deacon) of God is a highly spiritual matter. Forget that among the first deacons were found great evangelists. Forget that in many churches the elders are so bogged down with administrative trivia that they have precious little time left for the feeding and tending of sheep. Being a deacon is not merely a matter of physical administration.

Fifteenth is the notion that true New Testament preaching of the gospel is any talk or sermonette or homily delivered on Sunday from behind a wooden box or “pulpit” regardless of content. A sub notion is that if it’s out of the box then it falls under the classification of teaching. I am of the persuasion that most if not all of New Testament preaching was done without benefit of the clerical pulpit of today.

Did Peter have a pulpit when he used the keys of the kingdom on Pentecost? Did Paul have a pulpit on Mars Hill? Did Phillip, while riding in the eunuch’s chariot? It seems apparent that the proclamation of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and how sinners can participate in it is the heart and center of the gospel and that it can be delivered with an open Bible from across a kitchen table or while riding in an automobile. Few souls who have never heard of Jesus seem to be clamoring to attend our religious services so they can humbly sit at the feet of professional clergy. Probably less “conversions” take place in our stained glass cathedrals than we would like to admit.

Sixteenth is the creed that unity in Jesus can be had if the sectarians would just agree with us. In other words, unity is achieved through unanimity of opinion. Our opinion, of course. Just which of the many segments of the Restoration Movement possesses this truth (sound doctrine) remains to be seen and depends on who one talks to. Jesus prayed for unity in John 17. It must have been achieved because Paul wrote that it was something one could endeavor to keep or maintain. It was not had because everyone thought exactly alike but probably because all those in Jesus were of like mind…a big difference. Unity? Yes! Robots all thinking alike? No. We’re correct and you are not! Come join us and we can be one? Never!

Seventeenth is a creed already mentioned as we began this trek into reasoning, namely, the creed that says we have no creed but the Bible. It may be the noblest of all our creeds. I admit, I like it! It acknowledges a standard an authority. It points us to the liberating word. Yet it misses one glaringly fundamental point. The doctrine truth seekers encounter in the word are always open to individual interpretations. Our brains are different. Our backgrounds vary. Thus we often end up drawing dissimilar conclusions. Do our conclusions alter truth? No. Does a first impression understanding of a doctrinal matter mean one is correct? No. Does changing one’s mind or altering a position as maturity and insight are achieved suggest that truth is in a state of flux of the seeker of it is without proper understanding? Of course not.

Deciphering the mysteries of God’s divine revelation to humankind is a challenging and humbling experience. No one has an edge on how to come to grips with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To say one has a hot line to Biblical interpretation smacks of popery and apostolic prowess. We deny papal right to speak ex cathedra yet some of our brethren come frighteningly close to it in their pronouncements and their efforts at keeping the brotherhood pure. Beware!

Eighteenth is a creed held by many that the Lord no longer divinely intervenes m bodily healing through prayer. We pray for the sick, often in token fashion, then usually add a disclaimer after a request by saying, “If it be thy will.” To me this implies that it is the Lord’s will that cancer ravage bodies and babies lives are snatched in infancy by sickness. Who of us really believes such? Do we pray believing the power of the universe is at our disposal? I confess that I have been programmed for so long that I wonder if I have the capacity to completely utter a prayer with childlike faith and trust, especially regarding the healing of the sick and infirmed.

Faith as a grain of mustard seed is all that is required but we have been taught such things ended about the time John penned his revelatory “Amen.” Perhaps we are afraid that if we teach and pray believing that this will lend credence to charlatans and frauds who dupe desperately ill and gullible people out of their money all in the name of divine gifts. Do frauds and fakers really detract from the promised blessings of Almighty God?

Nineteenth is that somehow God authorized a particular English translation of the Bible, namely the King James Version (or insert your choice). Someone jokingly said, “The KJV was good enough for Paul so it’s good enough for me!” Absurd, you say. Who believes such? Then why all the commotion and writing and debating about which translation is authorized? Authorized by whom? Sadly some people still don’t possess any Bible in their own native language yet some among us have created disturbances (even splits) over versions. God should be thanked, and linguists too, that we have so many good committee translations in English. Can you imagine French Christians arguing and splintering over the KJV when they can’t even read it in the first place?

Sometimes it appears our church leaders spend overtime deciding which topics we can debate over and quarrel over rather than focusing their talents and energies on the message of a redeeming Saviour. Brethren, no modern translation of the Bible is inspired of God (excluding the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation and Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of course).

Twentieth is a widely held creed among so many of us that the proper and divinely designated name for God’s kingdom on earth is (little c) “church of Christ.” Can you believe it? Yes. Try to alter the name. Just suggest such a thing. The ekklesia was called so many things that an obvious conclusion an open mind could draw was that there was never given (or intended) a proper name for the body of Christ. The “way” has always been described but never named. “The church of God” identifies the “bride of Christ” ten to one over “church of Christ.” Come to think of it “church of Christ” is found only in the plural and refers to congregations of the Lord’s people. We are so hung up on pigeon holing people. They all must have a name. We must have a name! The family of God transcends such legalism.

Twenty-first is the creed that only members of the (little c) church of Christ will be saved. Forget that all those who are in Christ Jesus will be saved. Our narrow understanding of that is to equate being in Christ with being in the church of Christ (our particular branch thereof). “One cannot be saved outside the kingdom of God and obviously the kingdom of God is us, the church of Christ.” What answer would one have received had he been able to ask a 95 A.D. disciple of Christ, “What is the name of the church?” Would such a question have made any sense?

Whew! I understand this seems negative. It could have been presented much more gently. But, alas, I have at my disposal only the writing skills thus acquired. So be patient with me. Forgive me for not quoting or scripture referencing every allusion to the Bible but I deliberately left those out to encourage you to search the scriptures personally. Those familiar with the word are aware and could easily quote appropriate scriptures at proper places within the text. The Lord bless you.

http://www.theexaminer.org/volume4/number1/creed.htm

from http://logosresourcepages.org/FalseTeachings/freemas_2.htm

Generally, the Freemason will inform anyone who asks, that his organization is not a religion. Thus, there would be no problem with any church affiliations, because joining the Masons is not joining “another church.”

Recently many newspapers carried an insert entitled, Freemasonry – A Way of Life. The insert stated, “Masonry is NOT a religion in any sense of the word, yet it is religious. Church membership is not a requirement, yet membership in ANY church is no bar to admission. There is nothing in the requirements of Masonry to prevent a Catholic, a Mohammedan, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Protestant, a Mormon, or any member of any religion from becoming a member.” (The Question of Freemasonry, Computers for Christ). Dr. Richard Thorn, a 32 degree Mason writes, “Masonry says that it is not a religion. An honest interpretation of the teachings of Freemasonry will show that instead of teaching men what to believe, men are simply asked to put the religion they already have, when they become a Mason, into everyday practice” (“Fundamentalist & Freemason,” The Northern Light, Vol. 25 No. 3 August, 1994, p. 9). Many similar statements are given by those involved in Freemasonry, and likely many believe it. But are they correct in their conclusion that Freemasonry is not a religion? Let’s investigate and see what we uncover.

• The Definition of “religion”

To begin with, we need to define the word “religion.” Webster defines it as “…a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of people or sects…” (Webster’s College Dictionary, Random House 1991 ed., p. 1138). To be sure this definition could be expanded to include much more, but this basic definition is sufficient for the purpose of this report.

Let’s apply the key words and phrases from this definition of religion to Freemasonry. First, Masons have “…a specific fundamental set…” That is, they have set parameters, or guidelines, they operate by. Second, Freemasons hold to a system of common “beliefs” that form the foundation of their organization and which are agreed upon by their members. Finally, it encourages “practices,” which require a written standard from which to formulate them. Among their teachings are volumes of written materials explaining their doctrines, beliefs and goals. It is clear, Freemasonry fits the dictionary definition of a religion.

• The Teachings of Freemasonry

Albert G. Mackey and Charles T. McClenachan wrote the 2 volume set titled Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. This set is a standard reference for the “beliefs and practices” of Freemasonry. Note the following statement concerning Freemasonry and religion: “There has been a needless expenditure of ingenuity and talent, by a large number of Masonic orators and essayists, in the endeavor to prove that Masonry is not a religion… I contend, without any sort of hesitation, that Masonry is, in every sense of the word, except one, and that its least philosophical, an eminently religious institution — that it is indebted solely to the religious element which it contains for its origin and for its continued existence, and that without this religious element it would scarcely be worthy of cultivation by the wise and good” (Vol. 2, p. 618).

Clearly, according to this statement, it is legitimate to speak of the “Religion of Freemasonry.” The above statement speaks of the “religious element,” which would indicate some form of doctrine. It uses the term “cultivation,” which seems to imply its practices. Mackey and McClenachan continue: “The tendency of all true Masonry is toward religion. If it makes any progress, its progress is to that holy end. Look at its ancient landmarks, its sublime ceremonies, its profound symbols and allegories — all inculcating religious doctrine, commanding religious observance, and teaching religious truth, and who can deny that it is eminently a religious institution?… Masonry, then, is, indeed, a religious institution; and on this ground mainly, if not alone, should the religious Mason defend it” (Vol. 2, pp. 618-619).

It is obvious in the view of these Freemasonry writers that Freemasonry is a religion when they declare, “…who can deny that it is eminently a religious institution?“

• Other Indicators of The Religious Nature of Freemasons

There are other indicators that clearly verify the religious nature of Freemasonry including their ancient landmarks, ceremonies, symbols, allegories and teachings. One example is the meeting place, the Masonic Lodge. “Every lodge is a Temple, and as a whole, and in its details symbolic… A ‘lodge’ is defined to be ‘an assemblage of Freemasons, duly congregated, having the sacred writings, square, and compass, and a charter, or warrant of constitution, authorizing them to work’” (Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, 1917 ed., p. 7).

The ranks of Freemasonry also suggest a religious order. Note the titles included in the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry — Perfect Master; Prince of Jerusalem; Chief of Tabernacle; Prince of Tabernacle; Knight of the Brazen Serpent; Prince of Mercy and Commander of the Temple. These titles are immersed in religious meaning and symbolism.

There is a great deal of symbolism involved in Freemasonry. “Freemasonry is a system of morality developed and inculcated by the science of symbolism… Withdraw from Freemasonry its Symbolism, and you take from the body its soul, leaving behind nothing but a lifeless mass of effete matter, fitted only for a rapid decay” (Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Vol. 2, p. 754). “Masonry uses many symbols. They’re our primary way of teaching, just as they were in ancient times” (Questions and Answers, The Northern Light, February 1993, p. 19).

Though there is much more that could be stated, it should be apparent that Freemasonry is a religion. It is seen through the writings of the Masonic Order, the terms used in various activities, the titles of the hierarchy and the symbolism that is involved.

• Why The Denial?

Why do many Masons deny that their organization is a religion? Why would a friend or relative neglect to be honest about their organization? There may be various reasons for the uncertainty of their answers.

To begin with, there are people who become involved in organizations in a superficial manner. I am convinced that many join Masonic organizations without a full understanding of the teachings the organization holds. They join simply for the companionship or for social contact or social standing. Their involvement is limited to the initiatory status without their knowing the history, doctrines or practices of the organization.

In reality, Freemasonry does not reveal its teachings to every Mason. One of their own publications admits that. “Masonry, like all the Religions… conceals (italics his) its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it” (Morals and Dogma, p. 105).

Clearly Freemasonry allows intentional deception within its ranks when it desires to do so. In any event, it appears that not all Masons understand what is involved in the beliefs and practices of the Masonic Order.

Finally, the Mason is sworn to secrecy through oaths throughout the 33 degrees. For example, the Entered Apprentice of the first degree swears, ” …binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my throat cut from ear to ear, my tongue torn out by its roots, and buried in the sands of the sea, at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I, in the least, knowingly or wittingly violate or transgress this my Entered Apprentice obligation. So help me God, and keep me steadfast” (Ralph P. Lester, ed. Look to the East! A Ritual of the First Three Degrees of Masonry. Charles T. Powner Co., 1982, p. 31). Could it be that the denial is due to the oaths taken, and the penalty for disclosing any secrets? I believe the answer is “YES!”

• Is Freemasonry a Religion?

Though the arguments stated above are certainly nowhere near exhaustive, they are sufficient to establish the fact that Freemasonry is a religion. It fits an acceptable definition of a religion, and has its own order and system of doctrine.

Best known for their “prosperity gospel”, they promise riches in this life. W ask and answer the question, “Is Word Faith prosperity really Biblical prosperity?” The answer might surprise you. We let the Bible speak.

However the Word Faith Movement is in far deeper water doctrinally. Certain lines cannot be crossed without becoming outright heresy. These lines include the Person of Jesus Christ. We must not misrepresent our Lord and Savior, or we could be found guilty of presenting “another Jesus” and “another gospel” as the Apostle Paul warned the church.

Has the Word Faith Movement crossed the line? We believe so and you can decide for yourself as this DVD takes a Biblical look at some of their more aberrant teachings. Be prepared to be shocked!

Lorri MacGregor brings over thirty years of Discernment Ministry experience to this expose, having authored two books, ten DVDs, numerious articles and booklets examining various groups.

Lorri was a Jehovah’s Witness for 15 years and together with her husband Keith MacGregor and ministry partners Richard and Cheryl Schatz, serves with MM Outreach a US based non profit organization dedicated to the preaching of the gospel message to lost and hurting people.

Word Faith Is it the Word or the Faith of the Bible? © 2009 MM Outreach Inc

Posted by Basilius M. Kasera

http://www.thruthebible.org/
Thru the Bible Radio Network – Thru The Bible is a 30-minute Bible study radio program that takes the listener through the entire Bible in just 5 years, going back and forth between the Old and New Testaments. This Bible study program has been aired on radio stations in the U.S. since 1967, and is now being produced in over 100 languages around the world.

QA1677 Bible Study Dr Vernon McGee TTB

As the spring turned into the summer of 1990, I continued to ponder what precisely was accurate about charismatic teaching. I had, however, noticed a trend: charismatics were every bit as PC as everybody else, only they thought they weren’t. Three issues still occupied my mind: Word-Faith views, the lordship controversy, and eternal security. I was torn on the first, settled strongly on the second, and somewhat settled on the third, having traded in my more Pelagian colors for semi-Calvinistic threads.

I mentioned earlier that I read MacArthur’s book regarding the lordship controversy. In the spring of 1990, his radio show began airing on our local AM station. The broader-reaching FM station added him in the fall, and now it was possible to hear John preach without that interference noise I get when listening to the Cincinnati Reds on WCKY when I’m in Omaha. Because of Mac’s book, I got on his mailing list, which became important when I began receiving his ministry’s magazine, “Masterpiece.” It was quite the glossy little thing, complete with articles, items for sale, and book reviews. In the first one I got, the book reviewed a new tome called “The Agony of Deceit.” This was a polemic written by about a dozen authors criticizing the Faith movement (for the most part). The review was mostly positive, with two negatives: 1) it noted that everyone criticized in the book was a charismatic; and 2) it felt the book was too overly negative and implied that no televangelist had ever succeeded without appealing to common desires.

I would go to the local Christian bookstore and scan a few chapters. Some I agreed with, but a lot of it seemed strained. And what exactly WAS ‘Reformation theolgy’ anyway? Most of the authors seemed a little too ‘high church’ for me. And some of it seemed also to be argumentation designed for the scholar, not the man in the pew. Some of it was bad, but was the cure worse than the disease? I finally bought it, read it, and I understood SOME of it.

And then the ‘slain in the spirit’ phenomena began to bug me.

I’d seen this a few times, but what was it. I kept hearing it referenced, but what was it? I heard a local Pentecostal preacher talk about it on radio, so I called his church. The secretary was kind and recommended a book by – are you ready for it? – Kenneth Hagin. She said the name of the book was “Slain In The Spirit.” I told Michelle, she told her uncle, and Christmas Eve I was given (not as a Christmas gift) Hagin’s little pamphlet, “Why Do People Fall Under The Power?” So I read it.

And for the first time my eyes REALLY opened.

I noticed something quite amazing as I read – EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE Hagin gave of someone who was ‘slain in the spirit’ was an UNBELIEVER. Hmm. The validity of the phenomenon, of course, was assumed. And Hagin told many of his greatest stories, like the girl who danced in mid-air off the end of an altar a few feet off the ground. It was getting so thick that I was going to have to pull my boots up.

What now?

Well, my Word-Faith views had never totally crystallized into full-blown WOF theology other than a brief moment in January 1990. I was now skeptical but not openly hostile to it. Yet I noticed that Hagin often made his point at the expense of the text itself. Over the next 18 months or so – from January 1991 to July 1992 – my views gradually transformed into something representing a quasi-Calvinism.

And then I took a trip to Mardel in Wichita Falls, Texas.

I actually had one spare afternoon. I think it was a Friday. I know it was in July of 1992. I had decided to read one of a couple of works I’d heard referenced about the Faith movement. I found Dave Hunt’s book, “The Seduction of Christianity.” Right next to it, however, was work I’d never heard of: “A Different Gospel” by D.R. McConnel. I picked it up and sat down.

A few pages into the book I saw something that absolutely stunned me – documentation of massive plagiarism of E.W. Kenyon by Kenneth Hagin, self-proclaimed prophet of God. Merely reading it was mind-boggling. I was going to have to investigate this a little further. So I had to buy the book.

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. Page after page of plagiarism, refutation – and all by a professing charismatic who had graduated from a charismatic school, Oral Roberts University. It was – to put it mildly – stunning.

I read and re-read and re-read the chapters on doctrine. Incredible. Even the biographical information given on Hagin was more than anyone else had given up to that time. The only part that bothered me just a little bit was that it seemed to me that McConnell really stretched his point on the historical issue of where exactly the Faith movement’s roots were. After all….I knew charismatics who would defend Word-Faith doctrines to varying degrees but who would distance themselves in a heartbeat from the born again Jesus. This was all so confusing. Yet I’d heard a lot of Hagin’s jargon even in charismatic circles.

So what was the truth?

Upon salvation I turned my back upon everything I’d ever been told. If I couldn’t find it in the Bible, it wasn’t true. Immediately, I rejected eternal security – quite viciously, actually. I knew only two things from the ten years I’d spent in the Baptist church. I needed to believe to be saved, and I could never lose it no matter what I did afterward. A decade in church and that’s ALL I ever learned doctrinally. Well, I did learn that Jesus said, “Thou shalt not drink” and gave a whole list of behavioral requirements to get into Heaven. I also learned that you couldn’t work your way to heaven and yet they’d shame you into doing work at church as if you were the unfaithful servant who buried his gift.

About 12 weeks into my new Christianity, I got very sick with a combination of exhaustion and the flu. I was run down. We were at a choir festival in Jackson, MS when I came down sick. So the choir director sent me in the company of a nursing student (who happened to be one of my best friends) back at the hotel. The student explained about Christ was like an ‘invisible’ friend and emphasized relationship. That sickness, which some bed rest and cough medicine helped me overcome, turned out to be important in my walk.

Over the course of the next year, I pursued biblical truth with a vengeance. I didn’t even know what a commentary was. I didn’t know they made Bibles with study notes, either. It was just me and my KJV – it didn’t even have a concordance, but it was large-print. This language barrier caused me to make some funny mistakes but grow.

Then in my sophomore year of college, I began to wonder something tha made no sense. How was it that Jesus and the apostles did every day miracles, but I never saw any at my church? I began to believe God could do the miraculous and even ‘for’ the miraculous. And shortly thereafter I met the gal I would later marry. And that’s where it all took a strange turn.

She had come out of dating a Satan worshipper. She therefore had a lot of experience with demonic possession occurences, so our searches combined together into a more supernatural Christianity. It also just so happened that her uncle (I call him ‘mine’ because we’re family, but genetically it’s hers) was on staff at Kenneth Hagin’s ministry – not that I knew this at the time or even what that meant. In the summer of 1989, she took a missionary trip to Mexico where she claims to have seen sight literally restored to the blind. (How she ‘really’ knew whoever was blind, of course, is a question best left unpursued). Nevertheless, they had a successful trip.

So she comes back doing the tongues thing, which I didn’t understand. I wasn’t ‘for’ it and I wasn’t ‘against’ it. I didn’t know what I was about it to tell you the truth.

Then on my 20th birthday, we had a great day together. She gave me a new gift – small, of course – about every two hours throughout the day. One of the last things she gave me was two little booklets from her Rhema uncle. One was “Why Tongues” by Kenneth Hagin and the other was “God’s Creative Power Will Work For You” by Charles Capps. I got home about 11 pm that night and decided to read them before I hit the hay.

I wasn’t overly discerning at the time. I read Capps’ book, and I didn’t have any real problems with it at the time. I truly believed him when he said God had spoken audibly to him. Made sense, didn’t it? Didn’t God speak audibly about Jesus in the river Jordan? So Capps’ book was OK. Then I read Hagin’s book – and it was the most arrogant, condescending, and self-glorifying book I’d ever read by a professed Christian (at that time anyway). Hagin gave ten reasons why every believer should speak in tongues. And the focus of the book – in reality – was on Kenneth Hagin himself. He told one story of when a relative of his had had an accident/incident where he was pronounced dead. Hagin proceeded to stop the relative and tell a story about where the doctor had pronounced the guy dead and got into an argument with another relative. Hagin attributed the man’s alleged ‘resurrection’ to his own tongue-speaking. And throughout the book it was an ode to the power of Kenneth Hagin’s tongue talking. If I was undecided before, this book pretty much set me against it. He talked about how he talked in tongues while sitting in the barber chair while other guys were telling dirty jokes – which, again, seemed to be a case of “I’m better than these folks.”

I talked to the gal the next day and while we had some minor issues from the day before, the problem arose when she asked me what I thought of the book. I proceeded to issue the first declaration against anyone I ever had at my less than 2-year mark in Christianity: “That Kenneth Hagin guy is a false prophet. He’s nuts.” I didn’t know, of course, Unca Dunca (not his real name) was on staff or that Michelle herself had been to Rhema in the summer of 1986 and was planning to go to school there (or at ‘Christ for the Nations’). So it hit her like a ton of bricks, and we had our first real conflict. What’s ironic is that I approached the tongues issue as objectively as reasonably could be expected. I wasn’t pro, I wasn’t con. I honestly didn’t know because I’d never heard the subject taught – at all.

The next month I had my own ‘charismatic experience’ and came down on the pro-Pentecostal side (for the most part). I still rejected – and have always rejected – the P/C teaching that every believer CAN speak in tongues. Such is based not only on flawed exegesis but even upon a text of questionable authenticity. But I was pretty much pro-tongues. At the same time, I got into a separate war in the local newspaper. With the Church of Christ.

In the fall of 1989, three theological tracks ran through and intersected my world. The first was covered in the tongues issue. The other two overlapped each other. The second one was the relationship of salvation to discpleship. The previous year my father (not even a Christian) had bought a book entitled “The Gospel According To Jesus” by John MacArthur. Mac took a couple of folks – Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie, in particular – to task over the issue of salvation. I came out of that book with a better perspective as well as a belief in eternal security. It was this last that was one of my many contentions with the East Columbus Church of Christ. Along with baptism, miracles, and several other issues.

In the fall of 1989, they published a series of articles in our local paper. I read them. I disagreed with some points and agreed with other ones. It was not so much the position as the attitude that I didn’t care for. Basically, I was lost if I was doctrinally incorrect on any point. In February 1990, I wrote a letter that carried on a public feud for a few months. Eventually, I decided to simply stop responding. In fact, I contacted the Church of Christ and had them send me their materials for closer reading. And the next year (2/91) I actually met the guy who wrote the articles in such a strong tone when he was a substitute teacher at the same school where I was doing my student teaching semester. I was impressed that he was very nice – and yes, he remembered me. He was not, however, overly combative, and we had a couple of nice conversations between classes. So nice, in fact, that I actually did visit his church one Sunday night. I realize I was probably considered the lost prodigal, but so be it.

Meanwhile – in another arena – a theological tug-of-war began to occur.

In January 1990, my future bride brought a set of the 1987 Winter Bible Seminar tapes that Hagin had preached on spiritual gifts for us to listen to. Although we didn’t listen to any right then, I kept the tapes in my car and began to listen to them in the car tape deck. At this point, I always just assumed that no preacher worth his salt would lie about stuff. They might be wrong but it was a difference of perspective, not malicious intent. I devoured Hagin’s tapes, listening to a couple a day. This was great. This filled in all those blanks in the Bible like “What exactly is the gift of the word of wisdom and how does it work?” After all, does the Bible ever really tell us? No. But he was so enlightened and so experienced. But then came the turning point.

One evening I was listening to one of his tapes – I think it was number 1 of 2 messages – on the gift of the word of knowledge. All of Hagin’s sermons were the same. About five minutes reading the text and inserting words and about 70 minutes of stories, all of which began, “I was holding a meeting in (name of city) in the month of (fill in) in the year of nineteen hundred and (fill in the year)…” and continue with his stories. It did not dawn on me right away that what he was actually doing was simply quoting a Bible passage and then telling the story ASSUMING that his experience was what validated the Scripture. No, I was listening and soaking it up.

The tape was towards the end of side two. Hagin was talking about how he had manifested the ‘word of knowledge’ in his ministry more than any other gift. The gift he described, however, sure sounded an awful lot like fortune-telling to me. It sounded like something out of Miss Cleo. Still, I wanted to give the man the benefit of the doubt. So he told his own stories and then he told stories of times where the apostles or others had manifest the ‘gift of the word of knowledge.’ I was fine until about four minutes before the sermon ended.

Sounding rather laid back, Hagin mentioned he was going to another example of using the word of knowledge. He proceeded to inform me that in John 4, Jesus Christ Himself used ‘the word of knowledge’ to demonstrate information about the Samaritan woman and her five husbands. Do what? Hagin dealt with the rather obvious objection: he said that ‘yes,’ Jesus was the Son of God but He didn’t minister as the ‘Son of God,’ but only as a man.

This sounded INCREDIBLY CLOSE to the I John 4:1-3 definition of a false teacher to me. I backed it up and listened again just to make sure I hadn’t missed something. Sure enough, he said it. But how then does one handle the ‘Jesus is God’ teaching here? But this was more problematic from another aspect: if this is TRUE then it means that in ministry Jesus was INFERIOR to every man who ever ministered – because Jesus never spoke in tongues. So we now have Jesus really no better off than any other man to the point that any man on the planet could have functioned as man’s Redeemer and the entire Incarnation was pointless.

That would have been bad enough except that two other things occurred at the same time. The first was that I attended the service at my wife’s WOF church and heard the born again Jesus taught that same week. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense.

If Jesus was really not God but only ministered as God – then He was capable of failure. And when that old preacher told it about how God was on the outside looking in and GOD NEEDED MAN’S HELP to pull of the Redemption – when that happened then the charcoal lighter was all over the coals. The match was lit when in the same tape series I get Hagin speculating about the limits of Jesus’ ministry.

On side one of one of the other tapes, Hagin said that he had a theory that he couldn’t prove but nobody could disprove (say what?). Hagin’s theory was that while Jesus as a man anointed by the Spirit had that Spirit without measure, He was still the Son of God. However, since Hagin taught that the ‘body of Christ’ is ‘Christ’ – he joined those ideas together and concocted the theory that the BODY OF CHRIST (the church) as a WHOLE is as unlimited in ministry capacity as Jesus was. He admitted over and over that he couldn’t prove it and we should go by ‘the Word’ – but by the end of the sermon Hagin was now subtly shifting to his FACT (rather than theory) that the church of Christ is as unlimited in minstry as Jesus.

It now began to dawn on me – about one year into this thing – that his preaching was little more than a bunch of stories, all of which always had him as the hero. On another tape he told a story of a guy during the Depression who woke up in the middle of the night praying, “Lord, stir me.” And when this happened he ‘got over in the devil’s territory’ and lost his business and went on WPA and was broke. But then he spoke in tongues and got his stuff back. A little while later the same thing happened – he woke up asking God to stir him, he got into the devil’s territory – and lost it all again. The third time he woke up and said, “Lord, stir…never mind, Lord, I’ll just stir myself up.” Hagin then went on to say that he was busy stirring Himself up – God wasn’t even involved with it at the time. God got involved later, Hagin said, but he has just stirred his-self up. In essence, Hagin’s tale presented the story of a man who wanted to intercede and begged God to help him and messed up – and a man who didn’t even need God to pull it off but, praise God, the man was able to let the Lord have just a little bit of credit there at the end of it.

I was getting angry now when I listened to this guy’s tapes. All he kept talking about was himself. In this guy’s stories, he was basically a modern-day Jesus.

I wonder what the girlfriend is going to say when I tell her this guy’s nuts? Especially since I only recently learned her uncle works for the man.

hell and fire go together as “hell fire” Matt 5:22, 18:9, Mark 9:47
hell is a place of “fire” Matt 7:19, 13:40, 25:41
hell is the “furnace of fire” Matt 13:42, 50
hell is “the fire that never shall be quenched” Mark 9:43, 45
hell is the place where “the fire is not quenched” Mark 9:44, 46, 48
hell is a place of “everlasting fire” Matt 18:8, 25:41
hell is “damnation” Matt 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47
hell is the “damnation of hell” Matt 23:33
hell is the place of “eternal damnation” Mark 3:29
hell is the “resurrection of damnation” John 5:29
http://www.eternalhell.net/hellfire.htm#166656755