A Review of K. C. Moser's "The Way of Salvation" by G. C. Brewer

[Lee Freeman]

     Here's the great G. C. Brewer's very favorable review and endorsement of the little book by K. C. Moser that many in the CoC brotrherhood (even to this day) hated-The Way of Salvation. Alexander Campbell would've endorsed it as wholeheartedly as Brewer did. I'm waiting on the Spiritual Sword to republish Brewer's review and come out and endorse the book as well, but, something tells me I'm in for a very long wait.                                                   


                                                        A Review

     One of the best little books that came from any press in 1932 was published by the Gospel Advocate Company. It is entitled "The Way of Salvation," and it was written by Brother K. C. Moser. It consists of about one hundred seventy-five pages and is divided into nine chapters. It treats the fundamentals of the gospel and could be truthfully called a book of "first principles." However, this is no superficial treatment of certain steps of obedience as first principles; it is not a mere contention that these steps are essential to salvation. This books goes to the bottom of the matter and deals with the principles that underlie the steps of obedience--faith, repentance, and baptism--which we usually speak of as first principles.

     The chapter headings of the book are: "The Need of Redemption," "The Way of Salvation," "The Justification of Abraham," "Repentance and Faith," "Confession and Baptism," "The Righteousness of God," "The Gift of the Holy Spirit," "Sanctification," and "Worship." Each subject is treated in a way that is original and different. The style is simple and easy, the reasoning logical and sound, and the author's grasp on the profoundest teaching of the Bible is, to say the least of it, unusual and refreshing. But the most pleasing as well as the most striking feature of the book is the author's faith in and reverence for God's word. He spends no theory and indulges in no speculation. The whole book is purely exegesis and explanation. The teaching of one passage of Scripture is construed in the light of all else the Scriptures say on the subject. There is no second-hand or borrowed use of a passage to sustain an argument without regard for the real meaning of the passage; no hackneyed or stereotyped citing of passages to prove an "accepted view" or "a brotherhood idea." The author's independence of all denominational views or brotherhood ideas, or of what the "fathers" taught, or of what has been "our doctrine" is the most encouraging thing that I have seen in print among the disciples of Christ in this decade. Even if the author is wrong in some of his conclusions, it is a hopeful sign to see that we still have men who are sincere and courageous enough to make an independent and an individual study of God's word. Too many of us are inclined to first find out what "we teach" on a subject, and then hunt out the passages by which we prove "our doctrine." Brother Moser does not belong to this type of preachers. He is so far from it that he even uses a phraseology that is different from that which is "legal tender" among us. He even uses language that is Baptistic in some instances, but he is not concerned about whether a point is taught by the Baptists, by the Catholics, or by the Mormons. The one supreme and controlling idea with him is whether or not the Scriptures teach that point.

     *As an illustration of this characteristic, take the subject of the fourth chapter, which is given in the index as "Repentance and Faith." Throughout the chapter, as well as in other places in the book, he uses that order and speaks of repentance and faith instead of faith and repentance, which is the customary form of speech among us. In fact, he shows that repentance does actually precede that degree of faith that saves. You say that is exactly what the Baptists teach! Very well; it is also exactly what the Bible teaches. But you say we have debated that point with the Baptists! Even so; I have myself debated that very proposition with the Missionary Baptists; but if we had analyzed our views and understood each other, there would probably not have been enough difference on that point to debate. Our difference was on faith and not on the order of faith and repentance.

     The author of the book now under review shows that some degree of faith--that faith in its specific sense-- must of necessity precede repentance. But he clearly proves that saving faith--a perfected faith--includes both repentance and baptism. Therefore, we do not have faith to the saving of the soul until that faith is actualized in obedience. In that sense, of course, repentance precedes faith. So also does baptism.

     The author's best work is done in setting forth the teaching of the New Testament on "grace" and "righteousness." He makes the contrast between the law and the gospel stand out in bold relief. He shows the difference in the righteousness which is of the law--a righteousness achieved by doing the things required by the law--and the righteousness revealed in the gospel, which is the righteousness of God--not our own--imputed to us because of our faith in Christ.

     In showing that man can and must obey God in order to be saved, some of us have run to the extreme of making salvation depend on works. Some have been wont to show that there is a human side and a divine side to salvation, and in doing so they have made the human coordinate with the divine. Worse, in the minds of some the divine has been completely ruled out and salvation made a matter of human achievement--except that the "plan" was divinely given. The gospel was made a system of divine laws for human beings to obey and thus save themselves sans grace, sans mercy, sans everything spiritual and divine--except that the "plan" was in mercy given! Mercy to expect man of his own unaided strength to save himself by meeting the demands of a system of perfect divine laws!

     Such teaching as that makes "void the grace of God" (Gal. 2:21), perverts "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24), makes Christ's death useless (Gal. 2:21; 3:21), and counts his blood an unholy thing--except as it is reached by a perfect obedience, and then it is not needed! Such teachers should certainly be "marked" and avoided. In all our marking, let us be sure to mark the legalist who destroys the whole doctrine of the gospel.

     Up to this point only those brethren who misunderstand our author will differ from him, for even though some may fail to stress this teaching and may lend help to the very opposite view, none will deny that the Bible teaches what the author sets forth on the questions discussed. But when we come to the chapter on "The Gift of the Holy Spirit," we will probably find some dissenters. It will not be because the author is misunderstood, however, for no one could misunderstand this chapter. Nor will it be because he spends a theory. As on the other questions, he advances no theory at all. He does not even attempt to interpret the passages that bear on the subject. He presents in the simplest possible way just what the New Testament says and lets the questions rest there. Others may deny that the Spirit dwells in Christians if they care to dispute what the inspired writers say. If they do not feel disposed to do that, then they may either believe just what the Bible says or they may advance their own theories and speculate about what it means. The author leaves them to their own devices.

     Every reader of the Gospel Advocate should order a copy of "The Way of Salvation" and read it two or three times. It will enlarge his vision and refresh his soul. I commend the book heartily. If there is a conclusion in it with which I differ, I do not now recall it.

                                               G. C. BREWER.

May 11, 1933



Pax.

[savedbyhim]

I purchased the book back a few months ago after you had mentioned it in another post. It is a very good book, and I highly recommend other CofC/RM followers read it if they get the chance.

[Lee Freeman]

I purchased the book back a few months ago after you had mentioned it in another post. It is a very good book, and I highly recommend other CofC/RM followers read it if they get the chance.

I'm glad you liked it. I, too, wish everyone in our brotherhood or with a Stone-Campbell background could read it. That and Moser's The Gist of Romans.

Pax.

[mistergus]

Lee,

Who are you trying to kid?

Since you accept the unimmersed as Christians, you and G.C. Brewer would have very little in common were he alive today.

He'd be exposing you as a "faith only" liberal, and you'd be denouncing him as a legalist.

You really have no dog in the fight.

Robert G

[Lee Freeman]

Lee,

Who are you trying to kid?

Since you accept the unimmersed as Christians, you and G.C. Brewer would have very little in common were he alive today.

He'd be exposing you as a "faith only" liberal, and you'd be denouncing him as a legalist.

You really have no dog in the fight.

Robert G

Robert, this is your only argument. Its all you say. It is you who have no dog in this fight, because, judging by the definition of gospel you posted earlier which includes basically everything in the NT, you could not have open fellowship with Brewer, who restrictred the gospel to the d, b, & r of Jesus. You and the SS are at odds with Brwer on the most basic, important, fundamental question of all-what comprises the gospel. You both give different answers. I don't know how you can claim fellowship with a man who gives such a radically different answer to that most important of questions. If you really understood Brewer, you wouldn't say this stuff-you'd posthumously disfellowship him.

The fact that all you ever say is what you wrote above tells me either that you are unwilling or unable to address the issue at hand, namely Brewer's definition of the gospel It tells me that neither you, nor the SS, really understand Brewer at all..


Pax.