A biblical response to RAP spokesman Rev Ron Johnstone (Part 1)
Behind Closed Minds is a publication written by “Royal” Arch Purple spokesman Rev Ron Johnstone, on behalf of the Chaplains Committee of the Grand Chapter of the Royal Arch Purple Chapter of Ireland, responding to the book ‘Behind Closed Doors’.
Free Presbyterian Minister Rev. Ron Johnstone is the official religious spokesman for the neo-Masonic Royal Arch Purple Chapter and the individual asked to rebut Behind Closed Doors (the first exposure of the RAP degree in 200 years). It was certainly with much anticipation that we wondered how an evangelical minister could possibly defend such blatant Masonic ritualism. Where would he start? What obscure Scripture could possibly be employed in support of this degrading secret degree? To be quite honest, we find it amazing, for someone who purports to be an evangelical Protestant, that he would be such an impassioned friend and advocate of Masonic ritualism.
The title of his publication (Behind Closed Minds) reveals a lot about the angle of the response and his attitude to those Christians that oppose such ritualism. Instead of attempting to give a biblical response we find much ad hominem rhetoric in this Royal Arch Purple defence. It is clear from this secret society publication that Rev. Ron Johnstone is far from happy with the Chapter’s secrets being out in the public arena. Being devoid of any biblical origin or support for the Masonic practices performed by the Orangemen, he makes it his mission to malign the author of Behind Closed Doors (Paul Malcomson) at every opportunity. The old adage is true: “if you cannot attack the message, attack the messenger.” His antagonism, is palatable. Notwithstanding, in our response, we have deliberately chose to concentrate upon the arguments relating to the actual “Royal” Arch Purple degree rather than reply to the author’s many unhelpful and unfair personal attacks upon Mr Malcomson.
We will examine this rebuttal from a traditional evangelical position. We will use the Word of God as our argument and test everything by that most precious and trusty Book.
We believe there are many significant flaws in Rev. Johnstone’s defence of the Royal Arch Purple degree which cannot go unchallenged. His thesis certainly runs contrary to the traditional evangelical position on ritualism and Freemasonry. In our opinion, many of his arguments are extra-biblical and anti-Protestant.
What Mr Johnstone fails to see in actually discussing the Masonic practices of the RAP is, he is breaking his own RAP oath ‘not to discuss RAP secrets with outsiders’. That may explain why it is near impossible for outsiders to purchase this RAP booklet today. Although he did circulate his publication amongst his fellow Free Presbyterian Ministers, in an effort to save face from the scandal that unfolded after the public expose of his beloved Order. Little did he realize, but, Mr Johnstone actually lent credibility to the serious allegations contained with Behind Closed Doors by actually discussing and explaining the “real meaning” of the teaching, practices and symbols, instead of denying that these degrading practices take place. Basically, he ended up confirming what many onlookers suspected: namely that the content within this explosive exposure is factually true. For that alone we owe Mr Johnstone our appreciation.
Read a detailed exposure of the Royal Arch Purple by W P Malcomson:
Notwithstanding, we are shocked and saddened at the liberal attitude assumed by Rev. Johnstone in this document, and we feel compelled to give it a careful biblical response. We make no apology for our strong anti-Masonic anti-ritualistic position. In assuming such, we stand in good company with a large body of honourable evangelical leaders over the centuries (including the overwhelming amount of Free Presbyterian ministers). We stand with them in resisting the dangerous encroachments of religious ritualism.
In taking our stand, we hold no bitterness towards any individual involved in Masonry or any other similar secret body like the Royal Arch Purple. We believe our stance to be scriptural and to be consistent with the broad evangelical position on secret fraternities – which has always resolutely opposed the evil existence and encroachments of Freemasonry.
The most notable aspect of Behind Closed Minds, which has been heralded by some as both a defence of the Royal Arch Purple and a rebuttal of Behind Closed Doors, is its evasive nature. It repeatedly ignores the many biblical arguments outlined by Mr Malcomson in Behind Closed Doors and fails to address the vast bulk of the false practices/teaching incorporated within the neo-Masonic Royal Arch Purple initiation, as if they somehow didn’t exist. We find this both telling and poignant.
Quotes from Behind Closed Minds will be made in bold italics for the purpose of study.
It is notable that Mr Johnstone looks for every opportunity to castigate evangelicals who oppose Freemasonry. He selectively employs the words of Masonic commentator Robert Morey in his book ‘The Truth about Masons’ to rubbish those who oppose that pagan institution. The statements he selects from Morey to support Freemasonry are amazing:
“Most anti-masons are far too gullible in believing extravagant claims…”
“Of all the attacks against the craft, none is so vicious as the charge that Masons are a secret cult of devil worshippers or Satanists and that at some point of the higher degrees they must pass through a Luciferian initiation”
“The idea that they are involved in some kind of devil cult is absurd.”
“Anti Masonic writers have been willing to use fantasy, fraud and deceit. They have even created documents when needed”
It is certainly telling that Mr Johnstone would advance such extreme and sweeping statements against evangelical opponents of the Masonic Lodge (which includes many godly preachers). Isn’t it interesting that an evangelical minister would be so keen to trash the opponents of Masonry yet so careful not to condemn the paganism practised by the Masons. Language like this only goes to reinforce the Masonic character of the Royal Arch Purple on Freemasonry are. Attack one, and you attack the other. Defend one, and you have to defend the other.
After jumping to the defence of Masonry, the author of Behind Closed Minds quickly attacks some of Masonry’s most vocal evangelical opponents by name – William Schnoebellen, Tom McKenney and Jim Shaw. He chooses to attack the integrity of these godly men, ignoring the error of the organisation they are attacking. His argument is based upon his own personal opinion that they are supposedly “discredited.” However, he furnishes us with nothing of substance to support his contention. Surely the first principle of evidence is – he who alleges must prove?
It seem that anyone who dares to expose or oppose Masonry or neo-Masonry (the RAP) is a target for Rev. Ron Johnstone.
Regardless of his view of these three evangelical authorities on Masonry, the issue at stake here is essentially the accuracy of the evidence being furnished by them. In this case, the material outlined by William Schnoebellen, Tom McKenney and Jim Shaw is impeccable, and has been corroborated countless times by numerous credible witnesses. Moreover, it agrees with Masonry’s own books and with the testimonies of many former Masons.
It is significant that Behind Closed Minds chooses to ignore men like Revivalist Charles Finney and John R. Rice (both former Masons) who are quoted in detail in Behind Closed Doors and who furnish the exact same evidence as Schnoebellen, McKenney and Shaw. He also ignores the anti-Masonic writings of the famous Revivalist D. L. Moody. Attacking these honourable evangelical witnesses exposes the contradictions and impotence of the author’s argument. He also carefully sidesteps the overwhelming amount of fellow-Free Presbyterian ministers who oppose this pagan institution.
Rev. Johnstone then throws out a further defence of Freemasonry by Morey: “They usually refer to Albert Pike as the official spokesman of Freemasonry.”
Mr Johnstone is obviously unaware of the high standing of Albert Pike within Masonic circles in the United States. His Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry is widely accepted as “the Bible of Freemasonry.” The Main Library of the Supreme Council 33° of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, S.J., U.S.A., the Mother Supreme Council of the World, Washington D.C., is dedicated to none other than Albert Pike.
Those who try to diminish his role or influence in global Masonry are either ignorant of the facts or are deliberately deceptive.
The question most Bible-believing Christians should ask is: why is Mr Johnstone so determined to discredit evangelicals that oppose and expose Freemasonry? Why is he so determined to support the existence and practices of the Lodge? The answer is simple. He belongs to an Order (the Royal Arch Purple) that was birthed by the Masonic Lodge and replicates it teaching and practices. The RAP was invented by Pagan Masonry and carries all the family traits of the mother.
Lodges Examined by the Bible by John R. Rice
The “Royal” title
Mr Ron Johnstone defends the “Royal” Arch Purple Order’s use of the ‘Royal’ prefix, saying , “His (Mr Malcomson’s) claim that the Order is seeking to imply royal patronage and have not permission to use the word ‘Royal’ is a complete falsehood as the History of the RAP shows.”
What other conclusion could we come to? The usage of the title is plain for all to see. They proudly employ the title and parade it in the streets as if it is actually their own? Facts are indeed stubborn things!
The Royal Arch Purple Chapter have no authority to use the “Royal” prefix. They appropriated the “Royal” prefix without any prior Royal authorisation. This self-conferment reinforced the rogue nature of the Arch Purple Order as the Crown alone is the only lawful authority that can perform the granting of such an important title. Such a conferment can only be bestowed as a sign of royal recognition. The criteria for using the “Royal” prefix is outlined in The Royal Encyclopaedia, which states: “Permission to use the title ‘Royal’ in front of the name of an institution or body… has long been a mark of royal favour. These honours, which are sparingly granted, are valued marks of royal recognition… the grant of the title ‘Royal’ is a matter of royal prerogative.”
Today, the Royal Arch Purple Chapter (along with the recently discredited Royal Black) still flaunts this “Royal” title, as if, somehow, it is the focus of royal favour. The “Royal” prefix also gives the Institution a sense of respectability it has never hitherto earned. In reality, the “Royal” Arch Purple Order have unlawfully stolen the “Royal” patronage from the monarchy. Not content with stealing the Royal patronage from the Queen they also attempt to steal the “royal” title from the true Church.
When we examine the “Royal” Arch Purple Chapter’s own history book for its authority for using the “Royal” title, we see 1 Peter 2:9 advanced as its justification. This passage says, “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”
This particular passage, which relates solely to the redeemed Church of Jesus Christ, cannot in any way be appropriated by the Royal Arch Purple in order to justify its underground procedures. Mr Johnstonme should know (as an evangelical minister) that the spiritual priesthood described in 2 Peter 2:5-9 only applies to born again believers. This has been the accepted evangelical Protestant position since the Reformation. There is no record of the Reformed fathers recognising unregenerate men as priests. On the other hand there are many accounts of them opposing the Roman Catholic system. This places a large question mark over the Protestant credentials of the Royal Arch Purple and the Royal Black Institution. How can these secret fraternities claim the Reformed title with such anti-Protestant beliefs?
The Chapter can never argue that such a title refers to the scriptural “royal priesthood” as such a description pertains solely to God’s elect.
Martin Luther, whose heroic stand against the errors of Rome precipitated the Protestant Reformation, and whose writings deeply influenced the doctrines of Protestantism, wrote that “as priests we are worthy to appear before God to pray for others and to teach one another divine things …Thus Christ has made it possible for us, provided we believe in him, to be not only his brethren, co-heirs, and fellow-kings, but also his fellow priests” (The Freedom of a Christian). That great pioneer of truth John Wycliffe (considered the main precursor of the Protestant Reformation in England), who gave us the first translation of the Bible in the English language, said: “Every pious man, predestinated to life, is truly a priest ordained of God.” Another great Reformer, martyr of God, and English translator of the Bible, William Tyndale said: “Jew or Gentile… in Christ they are made priests to offer themselves to God.”
The Arch Purple can parade this cherished title all they want, but the only ones they are deceiving are themselves.
For more information read Freemasonry: The Invisible Cult by Jack Harris
Rev Johnstone then contends: “he (Mr Malcomson) quotes from Matthew 10:26 ‘There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known’. He misapplies this to mean that no organisation has a right to privacy. Common sense would show that his misapplication is nonsensical. No church reveals all their private discussions.”
But this is no regular church meeting. This is a so-called Protestant Order that apes Freemasonry, semi-strips and blindfolds its recruits, degrades them in an elaborate ritual and then threatens its members with death if they share the teaching of the Order with outsiders.
In regard to Mr Johnstone’s objection above: Mr Malcomson already directly addressed this point in the book Mr Johnstone is supposedly rebutting. Either he missed this or he deliberately chooses to ignore it. Behind Closed Doors says: “No one analysing the sinful secrecy practised by the Royal Arch Purple and other similar societies could compare it to the legitimate confidentiality, which is sometimes used within the Church, a business, or government to protect sensitive lawful decisions. Such an erroneous argument highlights the hypocrisy of these secret bodies.”
Why, if the Royal Arch Purple and other secret fraternities are so biblical, do they need to hide their teaching and practices behind a thick wall of secrecy, mystery and deception? The truth is, such secrecy is essential to the very existence of these secret societies as it protects their spurious practices and false doctrines. It conceals such from outside examination and therefore minimises any condemnation or embarrassment. Internally, secrecy maintains a sense of exclusiveness among its members, which makes them feel part of an elite group of individuals.”
As Mervyn Jess submits in his book The Orange Order “With meetings held behind closed doors, where ancient rituals are enacted, Loyal Orders like the Black and Orange leave themselves open to allegations of dark dealings and mischievous goings-on.”
Our Lord’s own earthly ministry was an impeccable example for all that would truly follow Him. Jesus said, “I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing” (John 18:20). Both our Lord’s life and His teaching exposed secret (clandestine) behaviour. Jesus said, “For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad” (Mark 4:22).
The Protestant Reformers acted upon our Lord’s instruction. They were not a secret select band of elitists who, having obtained the light of the Gospel, selfishly hid it behind closed doors. They were a band of men and women, saved by the grace of God, who let their light so shine before men. Jesus said, “No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light” (Luke 11:33).
Secrecy is essential to these neo-Masonic structures to conceal the tomfoolery that goes on behind closed doors in the name of Christ. It would undoubtedly be roundly condemned by most genuine Christians in our land if it were publicly practised. Mr Johnstone is careful to conceal this apostasy in his evasive words.
We would recommend a revealing book written by David W Daniels – Should A Christian Be A Mason:
The “Royal” Arch Purple Order obligation
The author of Behind Closed Minds states, in defence of the RAP vow, “he (Mr Malcomson) twists completely the meaning of the obligation in regards to a brother’s female relations. He forgets that the Westminster Confession does underline the fact that some sins are more heinous than others. He refers to the obligation as, ‘This Royal Arch Purple obligation is a literal, binding agreement, therefore no child of God can justify committing himself to such illegal SINFUL conditions’ (Page 30). In his criticism of the obligation he conveniently omits to underline the fact that it is ‘IN all just and lawful actions’. That obviously qualifies all that comes later. It baffles the imagination how anyone could object to a solemn binding together. Does he not remember the account of how David and Jonathan bound themselves together by the ‘Lord’s oath’?”
Free Presbyterian Minister Mr Johnstone sidesteps the whole wording of the RAP vow. Let us consider what we are discussing before responding.
The “Royal” Arch Purple candidate swears, “I ——- ———— do most voluntarily, solemnly and sincerely declare that I will never reveal unlawfully, but will ever conceal, the proceedings of my brother Royal Arch Purple men in Chapter assembled, nor will I disclose any matter or thing therein communicated to me, unless to a brother Royal Arch Purple man, well knowing him to be such, or until I have been duly authorised so to do by the proper and legal authorities, . . . And I furthermore do most solemnly and sincerely declare that I will not write, nor indite, cut, carve, stamp, stain, emboss, or engrave upon anything movable or immovable, whereby the secrets of this degree may become unlawfully known through my unworthiness…”
This vow is taken direct from Masonry.
Freemasonry swears to “always hale, conceal and never reveal any part or parts, point or points, of the secrets and mysteries of, or belonging to, free and accepted Masons in Masonry, which have been, shall now, or hereafter may be, communicated to me, unless it be a true and lawful brother or brothers…I further solemnly promise, that I will not write those secrets, print, carve, engrave, or otherwise them delineate, or cause or suffer them to be done so by others, if in my power to prevent it, on anything movable or immovable… that our secrets, arts, and hidden mysteries, may improperly become known through my unworthiness.”
The “Royal” Arch Purple Order candidate swears: “I will not have any unlawful carnal knowledge of a brother Royal Arch Purpleman’s wife, mother, daughter, sister, or any of his near or dear female relatives.”
This pledge is taken direct from Masonry.
Freemasonry swears to “support a Master Mason’s character… and strictly respect the chastity of those who are most dear to him, in the persons of his wife, sister, or his child: and that I will not knowingly have unlawful carnal connexion with any of them” (Masonic Manual p. 66).
The “Royal” Arch Purple Order swears: “I will obey the five points of fellowship, and keep and conceal the secrets of my Royal Arch Purple brethren within my breast, as well as my own, murder and treason excepted.”
This commitment is taken direct from Masonry.
Freemasonry swears, “I promise and swear, that I will not speak the Master Mason’s word… except… on the five points of fellowship. I promise and swear that a Master Mason’s secrets… shall remain secure… murder and treason excepted.”
The RAP candidate concludes his obligation by blasphemously asking God’s blessing upon his unholy vow: “O help me, Almighty God, and keep me steadfast in this my solemn vow.”
No true believer has the right to pledge in advance to keep a vow, the substance and conditions of which he is ignorant. The Reformed Presbyterian Church attacks this sinful practice in the testimony of its church saying, “Membership in Secret Societies involves taking an oath before being aware of the obligation. No man is at liberty to bind his conscience by oath without knowledge of the nature and extent of his obligation.”
In regard to the detail of the obligation, the Royal Arch Purple selectively proscribes one sin in its oath, that of unlawful carnal knowledge, and then hypocritically applies limits to its extent, namely the female relatives of its own members.
Imagine a believer subjecting himself to such exclusive unscriptural conditions! Taking such a vow to simply abstain from one individual sin is hypocrisy, but qualifying the bounds, to which this sin may be committed against, is a blatant contravention of God’s holy Word.
James 2: 9 -11 says: “If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.”
Evangelical author Martin L. Wagner, refers to the subject in his book ‘Freemasonry – An Interpretation’ when he states: “This covenant does not forbid adultery. It aims only to restrict it [and]… while it purposes to protect female virtue, in fact undermines it.”
The revival preacher Charles G. Finney in his book ‘Character and Claims of Freemasonry’ argues that it does not even imply “the semblance of virtue” (p. 44).
We would recommend a very compelling book written by Masonic authority E. M. Storms called Should a Christian be a Mason?:
Whilst the Royal Arch Purple and Freemasonry are selective in their opposition to sin and discriminating in those to whom it applies, the Word of God is certainly not. Such selective teaching is contrary to the instruction of Scripture and is, in itself, a sin.
The Bible clearly shows that God is no respecter of persons. Romans 2:11 says, “For there is no respect of persons with God.” Proverbs 28:21 teaches that “To have respect of persons is not good.” Secret societies should therefore follow God’s example and act upon the solemn instruction of His Word.
God hates sin (Romans 1: 18), and cannot look upon it (Habakkuk 1: 13), therefore we have no warrant to be selective in our prohibition or condemnation of it. Sin is sin. Professing believers must therefore be consistent in their Christian walk and undiscriminating in their denunciation of wrongdoing.
The hypocrisy of taking such a vow is highlighted by that great man of God, J C Ryle when he says: “If men professing to be converted, and true believers in a crucified Christ, cannot be chaste, self-denying, and obedient without solemnly registering a vow, I must plainly say I think they are not likely to do much good… I think it will be a public confession that they are an inferior order of men” (Charges and Addresses p. 240).
Not only does the Royal Arch Purple obligation break the Law of God, but it also breaks the law of the land. After earlier vowing to “aid and assist” his new brethren in “all just and lawful actions” he is forced to hypocritically swear, “I will obey the five points of fellowship, and keep and conceal the secrets of my Royal Arch Purple brethren within my breast, as well as my own, murder and treason excepted.”
This illegal vow, where the Royal Arch Purple candidate binds himself to conceal the secrets of his fellow Arch Purple brethren “murder and treason excepted” is both morally and scripturally wrong. The extent and scale of such concealment is mind-boggling and must be viewed with the greatest concern and abhorrence. So extreme are the legal implications that one wonders how a child of God can offer any justification for such bondage. From manslaughter to rape, incest to robbery, a brother’s sin and crimes must be covered up.
Rev Ron Johnstone inaccurately states, that Mr Malcomson “conveniently omits to underline the fact that it is ‘IN all just and lawful actions.” However, Behind Closed Doors clearly states on page 29, “After earlier vowing to ‘aid and assist’ his new brethren in ‘all just and lawful actions’ he is forced to hypocritically swear, ‘I will obey the five points of fellowship, and keep and conceal the secrets of my Royal Arch Purple brethren within my breast, as well as my own, murder and treason excepted’.”
The same writer also chooses to conveniently ignore the full reference in Behind Closed Doors at the bottom of page 27.
Frankly, no one is saying that the Royal Arch Purple vow actively commits the candidate to participate in a fellow Arch Purpleman’s law-breaking (it doesn’t). However, it does intimate that if he commits a crime (other than “murder and treason”) his Royal Arch Purple brethren are oath-bound to cover for his crimes.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (Ch 22 sec 7) states, “No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God … ”
Charles G. Finney says of this sinful Masonic oath, “It is self-evident that this Master’s oath is either a conspiracy against the execution of law, or Master Masons care nothing for the solemnity of an oath” (Character and Claims of Freemasonry p. 44).
The Protestant Truth Society pamphlet on the Royal Arch Purple Order written in 1925 by former Deputy Grand Chaplain of the Grand Orange Lodge of England the Rev. Alexander Roger states: “If clerics aid and abet a contravention of the Law of the Realm what is to be expected of the ordinary lay Orangeman?”
The Lord Jesus Christ solemnly cautions in Matthew 12:36-37: “That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
Here also, like the Freemason, the initiate promises under oath to keep a practice he yet knows nothing of, namely the ‘five points of fellowship’. The ignorant candidate will later discover that it is in fact a mock resurrection rite, involving even further bondage. Ironically, this ‘rite’ is common to nearly every secret society and cult throughout the world today.
Some misguided apologists for the Royal Arch Purple have sheepishly argued that the contents of the obligation are not to be taken literally. Nevertheless, to invoke the name of Almighty God in an oath is a very serious matter, and something that is not to be taken lightly. To treat an oath in such a flippant manner clearly contravenes the third commandment, which states: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).
This Royal Arch Purple obligation is a literal, binding agreement; therefore no child of God can justify committing himself to such illegal sinful conditions.
We recommend a sound compelling book written by the great revivalist Charles Finney who was a former Freemason (The Character, Claims And Practical Workings Of Freemasonry):
Rev Johnstone declares, “The claim on page 47 that a child of God allows himself to be termed ‘profane’ is utter nonsense. It is either a deliberate lie on his part or else he does not understand plain English. Running right through the book is the insinuation that there is something evil about the RAPC as it is a ‘Secret society’.”
Such claims are all fine and dandy until the evidence is examined. Every single candidate is met with the time-honoured response from within the Arch Purple assembly: “What profane, or unworthy person or persons are these, coming here to disturb the peace and harmony of this, our Royal Arch Purple Chapter meeting dedicated by us unto God, and Brother Joshua?”
Like all the mysteries, those outside the Order are looked upon as profane and unworthy. The implication for any child of God allowing himself to be labelled with such a depraved title must surely undermine the regenerating work of Christ in his life. Moreover it must damage his testimony before his fellow Royal Arch Purple men. How possibly could a child of God accept this title?
The English word ‘profane’ is derived from the Latin word ‘profanis’, meaning ‘before or outside the temple, hence not holy, not clean, debased and unworthy, a thing to be avoided for it would contaminate the holy and clean ones’.
One can nearly hear an apologist for the Order saying this is not what is meant by the Royal Arch Purple. Nevertheless in their recent publication (p. 192) the Royal Arch Purple Chapter unashamedly declare: “When greeted by the word ‘profane’ it may leave some people at a loss to understand the meaning. It is not a word which is in common or everyday use. In the context in which it is used here it means the uninitiated, in a religious sense it means a ‘heathen’ or one ‘outside the temple’.” This amazing admission reveals the spurious nature of the Royal Arch Purple Order.
This sinful esoteric practice is not exclusive to the Royal Arch Purple but is shared with most secret societies and occult groups throughout the globe. Leading modern historian and scholar of Freemasonry, thirty-third degree Mason, Albert Mackey explains in a ‘Manual of the Lodge’ (p. 20): “There he [the man to be initiated] stands, without our portals, on the threshold of his new Masonic life, in darkness, helplessness and ignorance. Having been wandering amid the errors, and covered over with the pollutions of the outer and profane world. He comes inquiringly to our doors, seeking the new birth, and asking a withdrawal of the veil” (‘Deadly Deception’ p. 135).
Such a practice, again, has originated from the ancient mysteries. According to Mackey, the Ancient Mysteries commenced ceremonies of the greater initiation by the solemn form of “Depart hence ye profane.”
‘Profane’, of course is a scriptural word used to define an unregenerate person, a child of darkness. Imagine the scene of a blindfolded, bare breasted, bare-legged child of God being led to the door of a room full of largely unsaved men, then subjecting himself to the position of an unworthy sinner in need of light.
As we turn to God’s Word, one cannot help but see history repeating itself. In the book of Ezekiel we learn how the clergy of that day were absorbed in such sin and hypocrisy: “Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they showed the difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them” (Ezekiel 22: 26).
There is no ambiguity with God as regards what is, and who is, profane. Scripture clearly describes the profane. Esau is given as an example of a ‘profane’ person in Scripture. Hebrews 12: 16 says: “Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” As most believers know Esau became the focus of God’s wrath. Romans 9:13 states: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
Mr Johnstone then claims, “To imply, as he does on page 66 and 109 that the candidate is told that ‘The Ark Of God’ really represents G-O-A-T backwards is a total misrepresentation of the truth.”
Every “Royal” Arch Purple candidate knows that he is taught that the ‘goat’ represents ‘The Ark Of God’ spelt backwards (G-O-A-T). Mr Johnstone again misleads his readers with this denial. We are confident in letting the honest Arch Purpleman decide who is telling the truth! The fact that hundreds of Arch Purplemen have abandoned the Order since the release of Behind Closed Doors reinforces who is telling the truth here. This has included many Christians.
It is certainly significant that this Royal Arch Purple publication written by Mr Johnstone (with its many inaccuracies) has been quietly removed by the RAP Chapter. One wonders why?
The Royal Arch Purple, like the foolish Philistines in 1 Samuel 5:2, have attempted to bring this sacred symbol of God’s presence (the Ark of God) into the (heathen) house of Dagon. However, we learn in Scripture that after this holy representation was placed within an alien structure, “Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the Ark of the Lord” (V. 3). This highlights the fact that when the presence and power of Almighty God is placed in the midst of iniquity, the counterfeit cannot truly stand, because in reality, truth and error can never co-exist!
Evangelical Truth response
Part 2 – An analysis of the arguments (continued)
Part 3 – An analysis of the arguments (continued)
Part 4 – The arguments conveniently ignored
Part 5 – The arguments conveniently ignored (continued)
Part 6 – The Conclusion
Evangelical Truth response to Former Independent Orange Grand Master on Behind Closed Doors.
Grand Chaplain to the Grand Orange Lodge of England JRG Harvey book in response to Behind Closed Doors: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Evangelical Truth debate with Independent Orange Institution
Ulster Christian review of Behind Closed Doors
The response of George Dawson (Imperial Grand Master of the Independent Orange Institution).
Readers response (including the author of ‘Behind Closed Doors’ – Paul Malcomson).
Second response of George Dawson (Imperial Grand Master of the Independent Orange Institution).
Evangelical Truth reply to George Dawson
Evangelical Truth response to Independent Orange Institution attack on Behind Closed Doors.
We recommed An Army with Banners: The Real Face of Orangeism by William Brown