Jubei's assesments of the Gospel

            Legalism (roots of the gospel)

I have heard it said over and over again, Legalism is bad and that Legalism is not of Christ. That free will and knowledge of one’s self identity and relationship to God is what is required in the church. Let’s look at what legalism is, because for myself alone I really want to know since I have heard it used to vilify many denominations including the Catholic Church. People who have limited understanding of what legalism is or have a slanted view of legalism, really don’t offer a fair perspective upon which people can make a sound decision on the matter.

Legailsm - Legalism preached “rule” by law, not the moral suasion of Confucianism or the antiauthoritarianism of Daoism. It was concerned with how to make the state prosper and continue expanding until the realm was unified. It was a mixture of extreme rationalism, antihumanitarianism, and totalitarianism. Some Legalists stressed administrative bureaucracy, others strict laws.

*rationalism is the approach to reasonably validate any and all perspectives in an analytical or logical approach. (everything must be validated)

* Antihumanitarianism – the practice of implementing laws and rules with the objective to demean, disgrace, de-humanize people. (create unneeded suffering for a cause) “molech”

*Totalitarianism – The practice of imposing absolute obedience to authority. Absolute ruler, prohibits cultural expression and opposing viewpoints.  (church law, apostolic succession)

In all this we can sum this up in the terminology of the church as “Nicolaitane” churches.

Does it not state that there is One lord one faith and one baptism? (Ephesians 4:5)

If the apostles stated there was only:

“One faith” how then is it reasoned that by a man’s faith and each mans belief in the lord reconciles him to Christ for it is counted unto him as righteousness.  (pelagianism-, semi-pelagianism, adopted by the ecumenical churches)

“One lord” how then is it reasoned that there are three in heaven that bear witness, and that these three are one God?  (trinitarian renderings – adopted by both ecumenical and catholic churches)

The practice of bearing witness was of three bringing up charges unto death and incarceration, and one stepping forward to either take the place of the other or contradict the three in true witness thus removing the subject from sentance. In trinitarianism the father the word and the spirit bear witness of mans transgressions, the one resolves the transgressions, therefore God resolves the transgressions made known by creation, the laws of God and the power of God.

“ONE baptism” how then is it reasoned that there is a baptism acceptable and practiced within the church that is contrary to any baptism performed within the bible by the apostles themselves? (trinity- adopted by both ecumenical and catholic churches)

If at any time the originators of the gospel practiced any one of these things, yet we have accepted the nicolaitane doctrine of stating, believe as I do or you have no part in salvation in the mannerism of the catholic church’s adaptation and the Trinitarian following churches. Even though not one Apostle, deacon or bishop established by an Apostle ever taught that particular doctrine at all.

The argument is that the revelation did not present itself until as such time we were ready for it. My statement is that We recieve glory by extreme grace, not by inheritance. We are not owed salvation because we are mankind. So then through grace we have an inkling of righteousness. What came by the manner of christ unto the first men must be maintained throughout unto the final ones. With that said, any revelation considered new MUST be in concert with what was old and even what was ancient.

But I digress. That must be saved for a different writing where history must reconcile to the church.

Back to legalism, we see the church does not practice legalism in its inception. God does require certain methods to be performed in order to obtain salvation or redemption. The Old Testament had the "LAW" given to Moses, which we are all familiar with. These outlined everything that followers of God were to do, even unto a daily regimented level anywhere from how to prepare food, when to have sex, everything so as you can tell these laws were considered very “legalistic” and burdensome as far as obtaining salvation went. If you failed at any part you didn’t receive redemption and had sinned.

Yet now it’s different, or is it? We have the holy-ghost which leads us correct? But many don’t, they have the bible and they’re salvation is relative to strict adherence to the interpreted perspective contained within it.

(*Notice I said “interpreted perspectives”. If we all had the same perspective there would not be splintered denominations, thus validating my analysis)

As we hold these perspectives we also adhere to what we consider acceptable and discard what we hold as unacceptable based upon our experiences in life. There are no churches that practice legalism today. Why can I say that? Because at no time is a person dominated within the church so much so that they cannot leave the church. There are however legalisms in mystery churches (cults, FLDS).

I would say, the practice of following the doctrines of false prophets can be legalistic in the sense that the false prophet demands that his/her perspective is the only perspective that provides salvation or that he can provide you salvation in place of Christ. (Islam, Buddhism, tribal beliefs, Hellenism, paganism, radical Christians) and If we use hatred of legaism in its correct terms then I believe we could state that we as members of the church are in concert with God himself, when we say we hate the doctrine of blasphemers who practice Nicolaitane-Legalism.

 That’s a lot to state in one mouthful, but it’s a way of looking at it using the terminology complimentary with people who like to theorize high mindedly.For us simple folk however, we can simply say, “I don’t listen to false prophets”.