Views: 12<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong> page.<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n This chapter reviews two books, rather than one book, both by the late K.C. Moser: The Way of Salvation <\/em>and The Gist of Romans<\/em>). The rationale for this dual review is the close relationship of the content of these books to each other, although published a quarter-century apart (The Way of Salvation <\/em>in 1932; The Gist of Romans <\/em>in 1957). The first book was essentially a compilation of material from his numerous articles published in Firm Foundation <\/em>between 1922 and 1932. The Gist of Romans <\/em>was Moser\u2019s response to a commentary on Romans, written mainly in response to The Way of Salvation <\/em>(to which circumstance I will devote more attention subsequently). The theme of both of Moser\u2019s books (indeed of his life) was that emphasis upon the \u201cplan of salvation\u201d was \u201clegalistic\u201d and nullifies the doctrine of salvation by grace. Moser was a pioneering \u201cgrace-only\u201d advocate.<\/span><\/p>\n Who Was K.C. Moser? <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Kenney Carl Moser entered this world January 23, 1893, on his parents\u2019 farm near Johnson City, Texas. His father, J.S. Moser, a Texas and Oklahoma preacher\/farmer (very common for those times), baptized K.C. when he was 19. After teaching 5 years in a one-room school, he enrolled in old Thorp Spring Christian College, near Granbury, Texas, as a preacher student in 1915. He preached his first sermon that same year. By 1918, Moser was on the Thorp Spring faculty as a music teacher.<\/span><\/p>\n His first full-time preaching work was in Normangee, Texas, beginning in 1919. Over the next four decades, he preached for ten or more congregations in Texas and Oklahoma, eventually retiring in Oklahoma City. In 1964, although Moser was 71, F.W. Mattox, then president of Lubbock Christian College and long-time Moser friend, called him out of retirement to join the school\u2019s Bible faculty. After a tenure of eight years, he retired a second time and died in 1976 at the age of 83.<\/span><\/p>\n Publication History <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Moser\u2019s first published article appeared in Firm Foundation <\/em>in 1919, when he was 26 years old. The next year, Gospel Advocate <\/em>carried one of his articles for the first time, but the greatest proliferation of his material appeared in the former paper. Between 1919 and 1932, only ten of his articles appeared in Gospel Advocate<\/em>, while thirty-nine of them made their appearance in Firm Foundation<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n While Moser\u2019s articles ranged broadly in subject matter, as early as 1922 he introduced what was to be the great emphasis (if not hobby) of his subsequent preaching, writing, and teaching efforts, namely: Emphasis by Gospel preachers upon the plan of salvation constitutes \u201clegalism\u201d and nullifies the doctrine of salvation by grace. This theme dominated his articles in the 1920s and 1930s and became the mantra of both of his books, along with several tracts.<\/span><\/p>\n The Way of Salvation <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n My copy bears the inscription, \u201cFaithfully,\u201d and was autographed by the author as a gift to my late father-in-law, B.B. James. (While he and I never discussed Moser and his doctrine that I can recall, it is not in the realm of possibility that he agreed with the Moser emphasis.) The book was originally published by Gospel Advocate Company, Nashville, Tennessee, a great irony as we shall later see.<\/span><\/p>\n The Way of Salvation <\/em>is a small book of only 174 pages, divided into a Preface (by Cled E. Wallace), a Review (by G.C. Brewer, which was published in Gospel Advocate<\/em>, May 11, 1933, and was included in second and subsequent editions, of which my copy is one), followed by 9 chapters, with the following headings:<\/span><\/p>\n The Gist of Romans <\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Chapter 1\u2014The Need of Redemption<\/span><\/p>\n Chapter 2\u2014The Way of Salvation<\/span><\/p>\n Chapter 3\u2014The Justification of Abraham<\/span><\/p>\n Chapter 4\u2014Repentance and Faith<\/span><\/p>\n Chapter 5\u2014Confession and Baptism<\/span><\/p>\n Chapter 6\u2014The Righteousness of God<\/span><\/p>\n Chapter 7\u2014The Gift of the Holy Spirit<\/span><\/p>\n Chapter 8\u2014Sanctification<\/span><\/p>\n Chapter 9\u2014Worship<\/span><\/p>\n This book is even smaller, containing only 136 pages. The brief (2-page) Preface is followed by a 16-page Introduction, in which Moser sets forth twelve items he believes are crucial to understanding salvation (e.g., the meaning of salvation<\/em>, qualifications of the Savior, conditions of salvation, grace and mercy, faith, trust, et al.). This book is by no means a commentary in the traditional sense of exposition of each verse, as signaled by the fact that Moser titled it The Gist <\/strong>of Romans<\/em>. The bulk of the book consists of the author\u2019s comments on only selected verses (those which he strings together to fit his doctrinal position) from each of the 16 chapters of the epistle, followed by 2 pages of Concluding Remarks.<\/span><\/p>\n I will quote numerous passages from both books that will illustrate his principal doctrinal errors. Concerning only a few of these I will present some refutation. I need not provide more detailed refutation because another brother, contemporary with Moser and far more capable than I, has already soundly refuted his principal errors, as I shall discuss later.<\/span><\/p>\n Some General Observations<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n While Moser is not what I would call a good wordsmith, he writes plainly enough to get his point across. He has obviously done so, for the effects of his doctrine can be seen far and wide, especially since the rise of liberalism among brethren beginning in the 1960s. When one reads one of these books, he hardly needs to read the other, for their themes and emphases are one. In The Gist of Romans<\/em>, Moser uses the chapter divisions of Romans (especially chapters 1\u201311) as the structural device for the doctrinal thrust he set forth in The Way of Salvation. <\/em>In many instances he does little more than quote himself from the first book to the second. The principal difference between the two is this: Moser wrote The Way of Salvation <\/em>as the crystallization of his doctrinal emphasis between 1922\u201332 (which emphasis he vigorously promoted the rest of his life). He apparently wrote The Gist of Romans <\/em>in an effort to counteract the damage a 1945 commentary on Romans, written in large part in answer to his The Way of Salvation, <\/em>did to his doctrinal contentions. Since Moser\u2019s two books are so parallel in content, most of the material I will quote will be from The Way of Salvation<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n Faithful brethren can heartily \u201cAmen\u201d some things in both books. His material on the action involved in baptism is as good as one would hope to find in a few words (Way <\/em>81\u201384). In his chapter on Sanctification, Moser makes worthy comments relative to discerning good and evil and church discipline (Way <\/em>162\u201364). While by no means agreeing with his comments on the meaning of spirit and truth <\/em>in John 4:24, nevertheless, his statements relative to worship versus formality and to attitudes that are conducive to worship are good (Way <\/em>167\u201368).<\/span><\/p>\n Moser relies heavily on modern speech paraphrases and free-wheeling one-man \u201cversions\u201d to shore up his contentions (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed, Weymouth, 20th Century New Testament), which reliance raises a red flag to careful Bible students. For example, to reinforce his ill-founded contention on the justifying effects of believing and confessing one\u2019s faith on the basis of Romans 10:10 (a contention that would make any faith-only advocate jump for joy), he quotes the modernist James Moffatt\u2019s translation: \u201cFor with the heart man believes and is justified, with his mouth he confesses and is saved\u201d (Way <\/em>109). <\/em>Had the New International Version <\/em>of the New Testament been available in 1932 (published in 1973), Moser could (and likely would) have used it to the same end. It renders Romans 10:10 very much after the fashion of Moffatt: \u201cFor it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Grace and Law, Faith and Works<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The crux of both of Moser\u2019s books is his complaint that the relationships between grace and law and faith and works were being misconstrued and erroneously taught by most brethren of his time. This theme is closely intertwined with that of antinomianism, discussed below, but it is so prominent in Moser\u2019s theology that it deserves separate notice. He charges brethren with preaching a graceless \u201cgospel\u201d that legalistically relies upon compliance with law for justification. He therefore labors mightily and constantly to counteract this perceived error. Note the following examples:<\/span><\/p>\n And in the third [i.e., passage, Rom. 11:6] it is found that grace excludes works. This is so because the principle of grace and the principle of works are not compatible…. These two principles are everywhere represented as exact opposites (Way <\/em>36).<\/span><\/p>\n It is forgotten that grace and works are naturally opposed… (Way <\/em>39).<\/span><\/p>\n Strange that men will plead for a doctrine [i.e., that we are under Divine law in the Gospel age] that makes void the grace of God and seals their own condemnation. But they are still doing it! (Way <\/em>52).<\/span><\/p>\n Grace and faith mutually imply each other, as do law and works; and grace and works, as well as law and faith, mutually exclude each other (Way <\/em>53).<\/span><\/p>\n But Jesus did not bring law<\/strong>, nor did Moses bring grace<\/strong> (Gist <\/em>xi, emph. in orig.). Law brings obligation<\/strong>s<\/em>; grace brings a Savio<\/strong>r<\/em>\u201d (Gist <\/em>xviii, emph. in orig.)<\/span><\/p>\n The legalist glories in law, human righteousness, and rituals until he learns of Christ, grace, faith, and the spiritual. The law becomes \u201crefuse\u201d (Gist <\/em>1).<\/span><\/p>\n Mercy annuls the operation of law, just as law makes void mercy. The principles of law and grace cannot exist together (Gist <\/em>17).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n These are but samples of a multitude of Moser\u2019s expressions on the same theme. Part of his excitement over this subject stemmed from his own misconceptions of the Truth, and part of it came from his erection of doctrinal \u201cstraw men\u201d that did not and do not actually exist.<\/span><\/p>\n Calvinistic Inclinations<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n While we cannot describe Moser as an ultra-Calvinist, we may correctly characterize him (along with many who have come along in more recent years) as at least a \u201csemi-Calvinist.\u201d That is, he has (as other brethren since him\u2014and perhaps because of him\u2014have) adopted significant parts of Calvin\u2019s theological system, sort of a \u201cCalvinism-lite.\u201d Moser\u2019s Calvinistic leanings include antinomianism, imputed righteousness, and the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, as the following examples demonstrate:<\/span><\/p>\n Antinomianism <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n One does not read much from either of Moser\u2019s books before encountering what becomes a constant drumbeat that lambastes \u201clegalism\u201d and \u201clegalists.\u201d His definition and use of these terms smacks loudly of Calvinistic antinomianism. Antinomianism consists of rejection of or opposition to law (from the compound of two Greek words, anti<\/em>\u2013against and nomos<\/em>\u2013law). John Calvin\u2019s five-point doctrinal system includes the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible grace. A third point of his theology is perseverance of the saints, which holds that those among the elect cannot be lost, regardless of their convictions or behavior. These terrible triplets deny the need for and\/or the efficacy of human works of obedience in response to Divine commands (i.e., law). Per Calvinism, man\u2019s salvation is all up to God, which He foreordained person-by-person. Men can (and need) do nothing to effect their own salvation. Thus, Calvinism logically makes Divine law to which men are accountable irrelevant. Calvinism is therefore antinomian by definition.<\/span><\/p>\n In theological terms, the polar opposite of antinomianism is legalism, which emphasizes the human works of law-keeping (rather than faith in Christ\u2019s atonement and in God’s grace) as the pre-eminent principle and means of redemption. Dedicated and knowledgeable Bible students cannot accept either legalism or antinomianism: Abraham was not <\/strong>saved by his works (of perfectly keeping God\u2019s law) (Rom. 4:1\u20134); Abraham was <\/strong>saved by works (of obedience to God\u2019s law) (Jam. 2:21\u201324). Both Paul and James use this patriarch\u2019s justification by God as a pattern of justification for all who will be saved in every age.<\/span><\/p>\n Denominational liberals pejoratively hurl legalist <\/em>at anyone who dares question their Scripture-wresting pronouncements relative to grace and obedience to Divine law. Moser blazed the trail for recent generations of liberals in the church, likewise, pejoratively casting as \u201clegalists\u201d all who did not subscribe to his redefinition of legalism:<\/span><\/p>\n The following citations are representative of Moser\u2019s numerous fulminations against what he styles as \u201clegalism\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n As with all Calvinists (or those infected with this element of Calvinism), Moser fails to see his glaring inconsistency regarding the relationship between law, sin, grace, and justification. He despises any concept of justification of sinners that involves law, and constantly (in both of his books) turns to Paul\u2019s Romans letter for his proof-texts. He utterly misses (or ignores) the incontrovertible (both theologically and logically) principle this same Paul stated repeatedly in Romans<\/strong>, that sin does not exist in the absence of law:<\/span><\/p>\n But where there is no law, neither is there transgression (4:15b).<\/span><\/p>\n But sin is not imputed when there is no law (5:13b).<\/span><\/p>\n For apart from the law sin is dead (7:8b).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The concepts of justification, grace<\/em>, guilt, <\/em>and sin <\/em>are all meaningless if men are freed from all law by and under the Gospel. The need for grace, predicated upon the need for justification, is nonexistent apart from the guilt of sin. But, as Paul sets forth explicitly above (and as the Bible teaches implicitly everywhere), it is impossible to sin (i.e., transgress God\u2019s law [1 John 3:4]) where no law exists. So here we logically and Scripturally have all the antinomians by the throat\u2014whether in the era of Augustine, Calvin, Moser, or ours: No law\u2014no sin, no sin\u2014\\no guilt, and thus nothing from which to be justified, which justification predicates the need for God\u2019s grace. Moser and his type constantly intone that law and grace, as oil and water, do not mix; law keeping voids the grace of God, her avers. Bible students fully acknowledge this truth\u2014if this statement is taught as the Bible teaches it<\/strong>. However, Moser and friends never \u201cget it\u201d that their crusade against even the idea of the existence <\/strong>of spiritual law under Christ completely voids the grace of God by destroying any need for it. Do not miss it:<\/span><\/p>\n Antinomianism thus implies universal salvation.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Imputed Righteousness<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Yet another Calvinistic doctrine in which Moser dabbles is imputed righteousness. Calvinism holds that the perfect personal righteousness of Christ is transferred or imputed to the sinner when he attains \u201csaving faith.\u201d By this means, in Calvin\u2019s system, the erroneously alleged depravity the sinner inherited from all the way back to Adam is cancelled, and he instantly becomes perfectly righteous and incapable of further sin. A phrase in one of the hymns we frequently sing likely is a reflection of this dogma in the mind of the song-writer: \u201cDressed in His righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Moser\u2019s statement of this heresy is as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Attention has already been called to the importance of the principle of imputation under Christ. Just as the disobedience of Adam is imputed to the whole human race, so is the obedience of Christ imputed to those who have faith in him. We die, not because of personal sins, but because of our fleshly relationship to him who represented the whole race. Just so we live\u2014not because of personal, subjective righteousness, but because of faith in Christ. That is, Adam\u2019s sin becomes the sin of all mankind\u2014\u201cfor that all sinned.\u201d And the obedience of Christ becomes the righteousness of the believer. The believer does not have to depend upon his own imperfect obedience. He pleads the obedience of Christ. Christ is his righteousness (Way <\/em>118).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Direct operation of the Holy Spirit <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Moser titles one of his chapters in The Way of Salvation<\/em>, \u201cThe Gift of the Holy Spirit.\u201d After devoting the first few pages thereof to setting forth the doctrine of the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit (with which I agree), he then discusses \u201cThe Function of the Indwelling Spirit,\u201d followed by a discussion of \u201cThe Fruit of the Spirit.\u201d He very plainly teaches the Spirit\u2019s direct help, apart from and in addition to His Word, by means of His indwelling. As many brethren do (both among those who deny as well as those affirm the personal indwelling of the Spirit), Moser apparently assumes without warrant the following equation: Personal indwelling of the Spirit = Direct operation of the Spirit<\/em>. Note some of Moser\u2019s statements to this effect:<\/span><\/p>\n The Holy Spirit is given the child of God for the purpose of crucifying lust and thus enabling man to live righteously (Way <\/em>71).<\/span><\/p>\n It is called the \u201claw of the Spirit\u201d [Rom. 8:2] because the Spirit in man is the source of this new tendency toward righteousness (Way <\/em>73).<\/span><\/p>\n By means of the indwelling spirit, then the deeds of the body are put to death…. The \u201cmind of the flesh\u201d is over come, and, by means of the spirit, the child of God possesses the \u201cmind of the Spirit\u201d (Way <\/em>135).<\/span><\/p>\n The flesh is crucified by means of the Spirit, since the conflict that gave the victory was between the flesh and the Spirit. Here, then, is plenty of work for \u201cthe Spirit of God that dwelleth in you\u201d (Way <\/em>136).<\/span><\/p>\n In designating the Spirit as the source of these graces [Gal. 5:22\u201323], the apostle does not mean to separate the fruit of the Spirit from the person\u2019s effort in whom the Spirit dwells. The person being influenced by the Spirit brings forth these graces. They are the work of both man and the Spirit, but primarily of the Spirit, because he incites them (Way<\/em>, pp. 138\u201339).<\/span><\/p>\n Hence the leading of the Spirit contemplated in our text (Rom. 8:14) is the incitement to righteousness of the indwelling Spirit. It is man who produces the \u201cfruit of the Spirit.\u201d But it is the man who is ruled by the Spirit \u201cthat dwelleth in you,\u201d just as the man who is dominated by the \u201claw of sin\u201d fulfills the lust of the flesh…. Let us not be afraid that we shall be robbed of the glory of overcoming the devil! It does not belong to us (\n
\n