Natural Law: The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

When  Christians understand what they meant by "Nature" and "Nature's God", it starts looking very much more like Wolf. In FreeMason theology, Jesus might be a good man, moral teacher, and example, but definitely not omnipotent, creator God -- supreme Lawgiver, Judge, and King of kings.

(Note: Bible context does not have a separate word for Emperor, as king over other kings, so we must always understand the context. Both Old and New Testaments are crystal clear that Jesus, the Messiah of the Jewish Scriptures, is head over all levels of human civil government in every nation. As Revelation 1:5 says, "ruler of the kings of the earth".)

Jesus was very explicit that God's standard of righteousness revealed by Moses was universal, and would endure as the Standard throughout His unending administration (Matthew 5:17,18). "Fulfill" meant, at least, that He would correct the wrong interpretations men had placed on those old laws, not that He would cancel them.

¹⁷ “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. ¹⁸ For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. ¹⁹ Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Consider, now, how vigorously these two opposing religions (in our generation) both insist that the principles of civil governance must be separated from Religion. Listen to how the Masons insist that there is a superior source of religious authority that should direct civil law, whereas all (other) religious ideas must be excluded from the arena of civil law (underlined emphases are mine).

Excerpts from "Ancient Mystic Oriental Masonry" pgs. 121-127 (google books link)

217. Freemasonry does not profess to interfere with the religious opinions of its members. It asks only for a declaration of that simple and universal faith, in which men of all nations and all sects agree -- the belief in a God and in his superintending providence. Beyond this, it does not venture, but leaves the minds of its disciples, on other and sectarian points, perfectly untrammeled. This is the only religious qualification required by a candidate, but this is most strictly demanded. The religion, then, of Masonry, is pure theism, on which its different members engraft their own peculiar opinions; but they are not permitted to introduce them into the lodge, or to connect their truths or falsehood with the truth of Masonry.

218. "Every Mason," says the old Charges of 1722, "is obligated by his tenure to obey the moral law." Now, this moral law is not to be considered as confined to the Decalogue of Moses, within which narrow limits these ecclesiastical writers technically restrain it, but rather as alluding to what is called Lex Naturae, or the law of nature. This law of nature has been defined by an able, but not recent writer on this subject, to be "The will of God, relating to human actions, grounded on the moral differences of things; and because discoverable by natural light, obligatory upon all mankind." This is the "Moral law," to which the old Charge already cited refers, and which it declares to be law of Masonry. And this was wisely done, for it is evident that no law less universal could have been appropriately selected for the government of an institution whose prominent characteristic is its universality.

219. "The precepts of Jesus could not have been made obligatory on a Jew; a Christian would have denied the sanctions of the Koran; a Mohammedan must have rejected the laws of Moses; and a disciple of Zoroaster would have turned from all to the teaching of his Zeud Avesta. The universal law of nature, which the authors of the old Charges have properly called the moral law, because it is, as Conybeare remarks, 'a perfect collection of all those moral doctrines and precepts which have a foundation in the nature and reason of things,' is therefore the only law suited, in every respect, to be adopted as the Masonic code."

220. "So broad is the religion of Masonry, and so carefully are all sectarian tenets excluded from the system, that the Christian, the Jew, and the Mohammedan, in all their numberless sects and divisions, may, and do harmoniously combine in its moral and intellectual work with the Buddhist, the Parsee, the Confucian, and the Worshiper of Deity under every form".

- - - -

....and must ever be before him in his hours of speculative labor, to be the rule and guide of his conduct. The Landmark, therefore, requires that a Book of the Law, a religious code of some kind, purporting to be an exemplar of the revealed will of God, shall form an essential part of the furniture of every Lodge.

232. The Holy Bible of the Christian is no better to the Christian than is the Koran to the Mohammedan. Each believes that his faith is the only true one and so long as each one does as he truly believes and lets his brother do the same, they are both right. How can the Christian say that his alone is the true religion? Such a thing is foolish and bigoted and there is no Christianity in it. The Oath of the Mohammedan would be of no value if taken on the Holy Bible, because he does not believe in the Bible. Mystic Masonry respects the religion of each and every one, knowing that the foundation of each sect is the same as that of the other.

233. The religious philosophy of Masonry is as old as is the First religion, for Masonry itself is founded on the Mysteries of Antiquity, which was already taught on the lost Atlantis.

Notice these sweeping claims for the supreme law of the Freemasons:

1. Universally known within the heart of each man, without super-natural revelation, discoverable by natural light.
2. Foundational and prior to all other law codes.
   
3. Respects and tolerates any and all other religions,  [respects the religion of each and every one], while at the same time, never allows those religious tenets to contradict its supreme, natural law [they are not permitted] to [connect their truths or falsehood].
4. Universally  required, demanded to be followed, no matter what other religions say.
5. Each subservient religion is correct [they are both right] when they approve adherence of others to a contradictory law-code, but both are wrong everywhere they disagree with the Universal, Foundational, Prior Masonic law-code.
   

Once men who believe this view of "natural law" secure the Reins of Power (which they apparently had, by the time of the ratifying of the American Constitution), perhaps you can see the "lock" they had on public lawmaking in a "democratic" republic:

If the Majority agreed with the laws they favored, they could say, "See, we told you this Natural Law was Universal and intuitively known by all men."

but

If a significant Minority, or even if the Majority disagreed with the laws they favored, out of moral or religious conviction, they would say, "Look, you already agreed that your particular religious particularities cannot be allowed to challenge this Universal Law, that is the Foundation of Mankind's moral code. What are you, some sort of Bigot? How will your country have freedom, unless you deny (equally) the ability of all your little splinter sects to boss everybody else around?"

With that in mind, I invite you to review this essay that comments on a position held by a professor at a prominent Reformed Seminary in California.

See if you see the cloven hoof peeking out underneath the "robes" of the mainstream, supposedly-Biblical, teaching.

Some quotes lifted from:  http://americanvision.org/6976/two-kingdoms-a-politicians-paradise/

The two kingdoms doctrine provides just such an escape hatch. It provides a bifurcation between two “realms”—one in which God’s word speaks clearly to issues we must hold personally, but then a second realm in which natural revelation is allowed to obscure the clear dictates of God’s written word for political purposes. In this second realm, the obfuscated word allows various positions and often many peripheral debates as public or political positions, not necessarily personal positions.

Since there are then allegedly many possible positions of the same biblical issue, no single one of them is allowed to be called the biblical position, and choosing any one of them thence becomes an act of Christian conscience instead of Christian obligation. Thus are certain clear and adamant dictates of God’s word removed from His decision and placed in the realm of man’s. And in this realm, the two kingdoms advocate considers it a high sin right next to blaspheming the Holy Spirit to impose upon another Christian’s conscience.

This system gives the individual a Church-sanctioned personal space in which to decide whether or not they wish to pursue obedience to what God has clearly and adamantly revealed. If they choose not, they are allowed by this doctrine to maintain that personal space against other Christians by appealing to Christian conscience. “Buzz off, brother!” is the fence of Christian conscience.

But just in case this green-light to pro-choice voting raised too many red flags, VanDrunen closes with another firm assertion in favor of advancing “biblical laws and principles” in society:

We are going to do it by becoming wise and prudent people—people who begin and grow in understanding general biblical laws and principles, and being able to put them into practice in effective ways in concrete circumstances.

“If we don’t,” he judges, “we are not going to be acting in a morally responsible way in our political life.”

So how is that we can go from talking about biblical obligations to endorsing lawmakers with anti-biblical positions, and then conclude by upholding the obligation to put biblical laws and principles into practice in effective and concrete ways? Wasn’t there just some major disconnect there in the middle of that process?

Yes, there was. That disconnect was the top rail of the two kingdoms fence. On one side, you affirm biblical law and biblical principles as a personal view. On the other side, you do whatever you want as a political view, insulated from criticism from the other side. Then you hop back over and talk Bible again.

Let me throw in some other quotes here that try to shed light on what is commonly accepted among many Christians today. These are from "God Versus Socialism" by Joel McDurmon (2009). Joel is challenging the orthodoxy of men like Tony Campolo, Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, and that then-current, so-called US President each of them advised and cheered.

p. 104 "He (Jim Wallis) claimed (like the prominent atheists today) that 'religion has no monopoly on morality' and thus we must have a pluralistic society. This means that 'when people of faith get to the public square they shouldn't say, "My religious view is this," they should speak in moral language that is inclusive of everybody."' In other words, leave your religion to yourself and water your viewpoint down to a known political platform that uses the word 'inclusive' (you can guess which platform that is)."

Obama preaches the exact same message as Wallis: 'I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality. I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not.' Wallis echoes, 'I care about not someone's religion, but what their moral compass is.'"

p. 111 "That Wallis is pushing the left's agenda and code language is again obvious. Obama says, 'Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.' This really means evangelicals must leave the foundation of their religion outside the doors of city hall, and Obama is honest about this: 'Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.'"

"No choice" you say? Hmmm. Where are the Pro-Choice people when you need them?

Fact is, all legislation -- all defining of laws about crime and punishment -- is a moral/ethical function, and Religion is what we call how men think about moral/ethical things. So anyone who tells you it is wrong for you to impose your religious beliefs on other people (thus endangering the common good), is being religious, and finding the "wrongness" according to his religious faith. We can use the word "pluralistic", but the reality is no man can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or vice versa. In every society of men someone has to rule -- that is -- provide the definitions of crime and punishment that direct the policemen and soldiers about who to punish and who to protect.

The question is not, "shall we have a religious or a secular philosophy direct our laws" but "Which religion's ethics and morality will rule in the arena of law-making, judging, and law-enforcing". 2014-1789= 225 years. That is, at least, how long we Americans have been confused with this contradictory and impossible idea -- that it is not polite to bring the particulars of your declared religion inside the "doors of city hall". There is a proper, even Biblical, separation of Church and State. The priests duties and privileges are not the same as the king's. But in trying to obscure the reality that Masonic, secular humanism is a hostile religion competing for dominance over all other religions, they end up implying something as nonsensical as saying we can separate morality from religion.

It is just not possible to manufacture ethical sovereignty out of man's opinion, whether it is the One-Man dictator, the Few-Men Oligarchy, or the Majority-Men electorate. Last-year's man will disagree with This-year's man. Those men over there, will disagree with these men over here. Your religion may be that a man must dictate what the law's and punishments must be. In reality, every-man's religion already does dictate this. Every religion has a Prophet concept. Someone has sat in the Highest Council and heard the universal truth of the Nature of Things and inexorable Law that governs What Will Happen. The Prophet will communicate that sovereign truth to society. Every religion has a Priesthood which reminds you of this universal truth, teaches all its applications to human life, and judges men's violations of its code. Every religion has its idea of king, or law-enforcer who carries out the sentencing of the judgements of the priesthood, based on the the ethics and law communicated by the Prophet/Legislator.

Lawgiver. Judge. King.

Prophet. Priest. King.

Does this remind you of any Hebrew word that referred to Someone to come who would fulfill all three offices?

We need to make sure that our "American Civil Religion" recognizes that it can only be the handmaid of some sovereign religion which defines sovereignty in ethics and morals and defines good and evil in the area of crime and punishment.

Just make sure your civil religion posits that supreme authority in the God-Man, Jesus , the Messiah, Who reigns now from the heavenly throne, far above all other human and spiritual powers. For sure do not be taken in by the sneaky, contradictory assumptions that infuse our entire culture (including our mainstream Christian culture) that turns out to be the historical position of that Luciferian cult called the Freemasons.