MOSER.LEC - John Mark Hicks



THE MAN OR THE PLAN?

K. C. MOSER AND THE THEOLOGY OF GRACE

AMONG MID-TWENTIETH CENTURY CHURCHES OF CHRIST[1]

by

John Mark Hicks

Associate Professor of Christian Doctrine

Harding University Graduate School of Religion

In 1962, the editor of the Firm Foundation feared that a major shift was underway among Churches of Christ. If we do not "keep [our] heads" and "stay on [our] feet," he counseled, we will be swept away by the "changing current." That current, as he identified it, was the "liberal left" with whom Lemmons expected a coming "battle". It would involve polemical discussions over whether any apostolic examples are binding, whether "fellowship should embrace all those who have the new birth," whether there are "Christians in all the churches," and whether it is biblical "to partake of the Lord's supper on Thursday night." A new group was emerging within Churches of Christ which, while rebelling against legalism, was overreacting by embracing "liberalism."[2]

These words by Reuel Lemmons reflect a shift in concern by the editor. While the previous decade was spent defending the center against the right in the institutional controversy, Lemmons now believed the focus of attention for the coming years would be the left. He predicted that it would be "a far more terrible struggle, and the wounds and scars will show it."[3]

This general "liberalism," however, was only a remote cause for Lemmon's editorial. The immediate cause was a circulating brotherhood-wide controversy over whether one should preach the man or the plan. Should one preach the person and work of Christ or the plan--the steps--of salvation? Lemmons was disturbed by young preachers who were saying "I used to preach 'faith in a plan'; but now I preach 'faith in a Person--not faith in a plan'."[4] He laid the blame for this shift at the feet of educated professors teaching young, impressionable minds at Christian institutions, and insisted that both the man and the plan should be preached.[5]

The "Man or the Plan" controversy became acute in 1962. Apparently it was the talk of the lectureships. Several articles in the Firm Foundation reflected the disgust that some had for these young preachers. One minister complained that current lectureships accuse brothers of "preaching faith, repentance, confession and baptism to the exclusion of 'Christ, love, mercy and kindness'."[6] Another wrote that "if we are to support these annual brotherhood gatherings, we should be permitted to hear something besides 'scholarly papers' and charges of 'legalistic preaching' hurled at hundreds of faithful brethren who can do nothing except sit in the pew and listen."[7] In particular, he was tired of listening to "sarcasm, ridicule and insults" hurled at the "plan of salvation."[8] The topic was so "hot" that Lemmons devoted a whole issue of the Firm Foundation to the subject.[9]

Among those who responded to Lemmon's April 17 editorial was a lone voice who cautioned that the charge of legalism should not be quickly dismissed. Waymon Miller believed that the "gospel system" was often understood as a "modified law of Moses" where the intent of the system is "legalistic justification." As a result, salvation rested upon "strict compliance with a code" rather than being clothed with the "perfect righteousness of Christ." "In our effervescent zeal to convince all of the true terms of pardon," he wrote, "we have perhaps erred in selling a plan rather than a Person!"[10]

An elderly, retired minister who lived in Oklahoma City wrote Miller an encouraging letter. He knew firsthand the ferocity of a brotherhood's displeasure. His name was Kenney Carl Moser. In his reply, Miller reminded Moser that it was during a lectureship sometime during 1939 or 1940 in Idalou, Texas that Moser introduced grace to him when he spent the night in Moser's home. Miller affectionately noted that he had "recalled [that conversation] numerous times through the intervening years" and that he "very much" valued Moser's book The Way of Salvation.[11] But times had changed. While the "preponderant majority of letters and phone calls," according to Miller, were "sympathetic"with what he wrote. But it was not so with K. C. Moser in the 1930s.

Moser was born on January 23, 1893 on a farm near Johnson City, Texas. His father was J. S. Moser (1860-1923) who was a relatively well-known preacher/farmer in Texas and Oklahoma though he never pursued full-time ministry.[12] K. C. was baptized at the age of nineteen by his father and preached his first sermon when he was twenty-two. At first he was a public school teacher in a one-room schoolhouse for five years.[13] But in 1915 he entered Thorp Springs Christian College as a preacher student, and was listed as a faculty member for the 1918-19 academic year.[14] He began full-time, located preaching at the age of 26 in Normangee, TX (1919-20). For forty-five years he preached for nine different congregations in Texas and Oklahoma.[15] In 1964, at the age of 71, his life-long friend F. W. Mattox, President of Lubbock Christian College, invited him to join the faculty as a Bible instructor. Despite his age, he was a popular, well-known and influential teacher at LCC. He retired from teaching in 1972, and died in 1976 at the age of 84.[16]

His ministry was a rather controversial one. As a preacher, he was hounded by others for his views on grace. As a lecturer, he was persona non grata at various church events. As a writer, he was either attacked or ignored. As a teacher, he was known as the "Baptist preacher" on the Lubbock faculty.[17] Nevertheless, his ministry is an important one for contemporary Churches of Christ.

Recently, Moser has been identified as a starting-point, or at least, an early reflection of a theological shift among Churches of Christ on the doctrine of grace and the practice of kergymatic preaching. In 1990 alone, four authors pointed to the significance of Moser. The first to notice his impact and importance was Richard Hughes. According to Hughes, "the theological face of Churches of Christ began to change" through the work of Moser and his influential friends.[18] C. Leonard Allen, drawing on Hughes' information, note that Moser saw a "displacement of the cross and God's grace" among his contemporaries and sought to correct it.[19] Mike Casey wrote that Moser was "one of the first to direct us back to the evangelical center of the gospel."[20] Finally, Jim Woodroof argued that the present awareness of grace is but a "second wave," and the "first wave" was "initiated" by the publication of K. C. Moser's The Gist of Romans in 1957.[21] The most recent and extensive discussion of Moser is Allen's chapter "What is the Gospel?" in his new book Distant Voices.[22] After briefly surveying Moser's writings, Allen summarized his contribution. "The efforts of Moser," he concluded, "stand directly behind some of the theological shifts occurring among contemporary Churches of Christ."[23]

The purpose of this article is to assess the importance of K. C. Moser in the light of these recent historical judgments and to provide a theological analysis of his concerns. As a result, I have divided this paper into three sections. First, I will follow the polemical development of Moser's doctrine of grace as he published it from the 1920s to the 1950s. Second, I will place his theology in the context of the wider historical and theological setting of the time. Third, I will then attempt to understand the nature of the controversy between Moser and his opponents as a way of illuminating contemporary discussions grace.

Moser's Theology of Grace

After leaving Thorp Springs, Moser began writing for the two major papers of the Churches of Christ, the Firm Foundation of Austin, Texas[24] and the Gospel Advocate of Nashville, Tennessee.[25] His contributions to the latter were few at first[26] because he emphasized the periodical of his own home state.[27] In 1932 he shifted his literary contributions from the Firm Foundation to the Gospel Advocate. This was probably the result of his theological incompatibility with the Firm Foundation.

From the beginning his articles in the Firm Foundation evidenced a concern for the state of the church. His first article addressed his fear that worship had been "converted from a spiritual feast to an entertainment of the pleasure seeker." For Moser the key ingredient of worship is humility, and when the "spirit of entertainment enters, the spirit of worship goes out."[28] His articles ranged from discussions of materialism,[29] modernism,[30] the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit,[31] and the mission of the church to preach the gospel.[32]

However, from the beginning, Moser protested, at first lightly and then more boldly, what he regarded as the legalistic preaching of the gospel by his own brothers.[33] As early as 1922 he observed that "when the gospel is preached the part that has baptism in it will take care of itself," but "many never say anything in the commission but baptism."[34] In three articles, one in 1923 and two in 1925, Moser outlined his basic position which he never surrendered. In 1923 he stated that "faith is the only thing that can save," and sinners are saved "when faith has completely manifested itself in leading them to obey the Lord" through baptism as an expression of that faith. Baptism, however, is not what saves. Faith saves as the principle which underlies baptism. When baptism is exalted above faith or placed on the same level, then the message reflects a legalism. "When we view baptism, or anything else," he concluded, "in any light except as a manifestation of faith we are headed toward legalism. This," he added, "is often done."[35]

In 1925 he published an article entitled "The Righteousness of the Law Versus the Righteousness of Grace."[36] He contrasted the human righteousness which comes by doing the law versus the righteousness of God which comes by believing the gospel. He wrote: "And it is because of His righteousness received by faith that God justifies man . . . So when God saves He looks not to our righteousness, but to the righteousness of Christ received by faith." Another article in 1925 warned that preachers must make distinctions when they talk about the "Eight Ways of Being Saved." All eight (faith, God, Christ, baptism, blood, grace, gospel and hope) do not sustain the same relation to each other, nor are they all equally important. "In our zeal to fight error," he wrote, "we sometimes run into error . . . Grace comprehends all of God's part as faith includes all of man's part." Salvation is by grace through faith, and not "on the principle of works."[37]

In 1926 Moser published six articles on the relation of grace to faith.[38] His overriding concern in all of these articles was the place of the cross and faith which he believed were being displaced by baptism. Preachers were emphasizing baptism to the point of placing it "on par with works of law."[39] The value of baptism, according to Moser, is that it embodies faith, and the value of faith is that it looks outside of itself toward our substitute Jesus Christ. Neither faith nor baptism has any value within themselves. Faith saves, when it is expressed in baptism, "because it trusts in God. It is the hand of the soul extended to receive what God in his mercy offers, grace."[40] Moser disavowed as legalistic the belief that baptism is the saving act and faith merely prompts that action or motivates it. On the contrary, it is only faith that saves when it is expressed in baptism.[41]

Moser consistently emphasized the contrast between the principles of grace and law, faith and works, or divine and human righteousness.[42] The principle of salvation is grace through faith. "Grace offers, faith accepts."[43] Salvation is possible only by grace, and only faith can accept that grace. For Moser, faith is an act of the whole person--intellect, will and affections.[44] Consequently, faith is "not simply belief of facts, but trust in the crucified Christ;" trust in a person.[45] It is the "acceptance of truth joined with love for God, and the actual casting of one's self upon God."[46] Repentance, confession and baptism are expressions of that faith which God requires before he bestows his grace. But these expressions draw their meaning from faith. They are not isolated acts. "This view of baptism sanctioned by scripture," he wrote, "lifts baptism from a meaningless act of legalism to the high plane of salvation by faith in Christ."[47]

Early in his ministry, then, Moser protested the subtle legalism which existed among his fellow preachers. There is no evidence that Moser underwent a theological change in the 1920s, but there is an increasing protest against legalism in the pages of the Firm Foundation throughout the decade; a legalism found both in modernism[48] and among "gospel preachers."[49] Moser's boldness grew as he saw the gospel of grace neglected by many of his colleagues in Texas and Oklahoma.

"The Way of Salvation" (1932)

The publication of Moser's book The Way of Salvation by the Gospel Advocate Company in 1932 was a significant event.[50] Its significance is not to be measured by the public outcry it engendered. There was, in fact, little notice of it among the papers.[51] It was as if the book was published and then ignored.

The significance of the book, however, is to be judged by the difference it highlighted between two influential contemporaries, G. C. Brewer and Foy E. Wallace, Jr. When the book appeared, Wallace, the editor of the Gospel Advocate, editorialized on it. His tone is noticeably negative though tempered by his brother Cled's preface to the book. "We do not think," he wrote, "that [Moser's] 'approach' to these subjects is more effective than the plain preaching of faith, repentance, confession, and baptism as 'conditions' of salvation, like all faithful gospel preachers have always preached . . . Such preaching is not to be criticized."[52] Towards the end of his life, Wallace reflected on his editorial in 1932. In an appendage to his last published book, Wallace regretted "having contributed to its circulation" and noted that his brother Cled regretted having written the preface. Wallace blamed Moser for "indoctrinating young preachers with denominational error on the plan of salvation." Moser's "'salvation by faith' hobby" is contrary to the "gospel plan of salvation" and is "no more nor less than denominational doctrine."[53]

G. C. Brewer, on the other hand, had almost nothing but praise for the book. One year after it was published Brewer wrote an article entitled "Read This Book." In fact, he suggested that it be read "two or three times".[54] It is "one of the best little books that came from any press in 1932," according to Brewer. Further, he commended Moser for going to Scripture first instead of first searching for what is taught among Churches of Christ and then going about to establish it by Scripture. Brewer wrote: "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."

It is clear, then, that Wallace and Brewer had two entirely different views of this book. Wallace believed that it was too critical of brotherhood preaching and offered denominational doctrine in the place of biblical preaching on the plan of salvation. Indeed, he noted that the renowned Baptist debater Ben Bogard used to flaunt Moser's book in his debates with gospel preachers.[55] Brewer, on the other hand, welcomed the critique of legalism among the Churches of Christ. In his review, Brewer noted that "some of us have run to the extreme of making salvation depend on works" so that some have made salvation "a matter of human achievement."[56] It is apparent that either Brewer or Wallace were misreading Moser, or that there was a clear theological difference concerning the biblical doctrine of grace between these two pillars of the Churches of Christ.[57]

Wallace was not, however, the only one to read Moser this way. With the exception of two articles, after the publication of his book, Moser never published another article in the Firm Foundation. The two articles which were published are significant because they highlight the difference between Showalter and Moser. The first article, according to Showalter, was mistakenly printed in his absence, and the second was Moser's reply to the editor's critique of the first article.[58] The upshot of this exchange is that Showalter regarded Moser as a traitor who had sided with the Baptists. It is reasonable to assume that Moser was not permitted to publish, or that he did not want to publish, in the Firm Foundation. Due to the correlation of dates, his shift to writing for the Gospel Advocate was probably due to the publication of The Way of Salvation,[59] or at least to Showalter's increasing frustration with Moser's themes.[60]

The Way of Salvation is subtitled "Being an Exposition of God's Method of Justification Through Christ." It is fundamentally an exposition of the doctrine of atonement from three perspectives. First, it unpacks the nature of Christ's atonement as it relates to the human need for righteousness in God's sight; the human need for justification. Second, it correlates the conditions of salvation (faith, repentance, confession and baptism) with the nature of the atonement; it reflects theologically on the atonement. Third, it explains how the doctrine of atonement functions as the foundation of Christian life in sanctification and worship; it applies the biblical doctrine of grace to the Christian life. There is no doubt, as Allen has commented, that there is a "subtle but steady polemic: somebody was misconstruing the saving work of Christ and seriously compromising the gospel."[61]

The Way of Salvation is based upon the principle of grace through faith as opposed to law through works. Due to human sin, the law is impotent to save, and consequently humanity cannot hope to be saved through any amount of works. It is faith that saves, not acts produced by faith or works apart from faith. Moser opposed any idea where faith functions as a mere principle of action so that the acts save rather than faith save. That would violate Ephesians 2:8-9. Faith is more than a mere intellectual assent by which one is moved to act so that the act can save. Rather, faith means "trust or reliance."[62] It is our trust in the propitiation of Christ that saves. Faith is the principle of salvation by which we receive God's grace.

This excludes works, or "doing deeds," as a principle of salvation.[63] Works contain their own righteousness, and we are not saved by our own righteousness. Works, therefore, exclude grace. However, Moser did not believe salvation was unconditional or that baptism was not a part of what God requires for salvation. Rather, baptism draws its meaning from faith just as faith draws its meaning from its object, Christ crucified.[64] Baptism is expressive of the faith which trusts in Christ for salvation. Since God has required baptism as an expression of faith, baptism as that expression is the means of salvation. Baptism is not, therefore, a work, but a required expression of faith. It has the meaning of faith in that it rejects human righteousness and receives divine righteousness.[65] God, however, will not bestow that gift until faith is expressed in the required manner.[66] Moser regarded this as a fundamental principle of God's relationship with humanity, whether it was Noah, Abraham or Joshua: "when a command is given which depends on faith for its performance, faith is not considered or accepted until the command has been obeyed."[67]

Moser's polemic against "the plan" surfaced in this context.[68] The "plan" construct isolates faith from baptism, and forces baptism to stand alone as if it is the act which procures the remission of sins, or it is the act which changes the state of the sinner. It treats baptism as a separate step apart from faith and faith is reduced to a "principle of action."[69] Faith merely "starts one on his way to Christ, gets him so far and stops, then turns him over to repentance," and so on through confession and baptism. In contrast, Moser argued that faith must be seen as the principle of all other acts; they are expressions of faith. They gain their meaning from the meaning of faith. They are not arbitrary, independent acts, but expressions of trust in the blood of Christ for salvation.[70]

The heart of Moser's book, however, is the contrast between human and divine righteousness.[71] Human righteousness is rooted in the principle of works (as debt), but divine righteousness is rooted in the principle of grace (as gift). This distinction, between a righteousness that is based on "good works" or "human effort" and a righteousness which is given by God through faith, was crucial for Moser.[72] Trust in Christ and expression of that trust in the required manner signifies a "one-hundred-per-cent rejection of the doctrine of justification by works."[73] Through the blood of Christ a divine righteousness, or, what Scripture calls, the "righteousness of God" is received. This righteousness is given through "the principle of imputation" so that "the believer does not have to depend upon his own imperfect obedience." On the contrary, "he pleads the obedience of Christ" for "Christ is his righteousness."[74] Salvation, according to Moser, rests in the fact that we can claim Christ's righteousness as our own--his obedience is our merit.[75] "This divine righteousness," Moser thought, "should be the theme of every gospel sermon."[76]

According to Moser, this contrast between divine and human righteousness; between imputed and inherent righteousness is the heart of the gospel. The difference "between these two kinds of righteousness is the basis of the conflict between law and works and grace and faith."[77] When the law demands works, it demands efforts at human righteousness. When grace calls for faith, it calls for the acceptance of divine righteousness as a gift. All human efforts at obeying any law, whether human traditions, the Mosaic code or the law of Christ, are efforts at human righteousness. The glorious call of the gospel is to accept God's imputation of Christ's righteousness through faith. It is a righteousness that does not depend on a righteousness earned by works from below, but upon the righteousness given from above through faith.[78]

"Are We Preaching the Gospel of Christ?" (1937)

On December 1, 1932, Moser published an article entitled "Preaching Jesus."[79] To preach Jesus, according to Moser, is to proclaim him as the Son of God who bears the sins of the world as a sin-offering to God. To preach Jesus is to proclaim the atoning sacrifice of Christ; to proclaim him as Savior, not as Lawgiver. It is not "enough," he wrote, to proclaim the fact of Jesus' death and the command to be baptized. "One can preach faith, repentance, confession and baptism, and not preach the gospel." What must be proclaimed is that Jesus is Savior, the sin-bearer of the world, and that faith means to "trust in a Savior." He wrote: "When one loses sight of Christ as a sin-bearer, he thinks of faith as a mere 'mental assent,' and, therefore speaks disparagingly of it. To such a person faith is no more than a principle of action that moves man to seek salvation by his own efforts, just as though the death of Christ were without significance!" Thus, when Philip preached Jesus as man's sin-bearer, this was not an "incidental reference, but constituted the chief point of his sermon. Philip preached not a plan, but a man."[80] Moser was concerned that the conditions of salvation were preached "apart from their reference to the atonement." When this is done, he argued, "the conditions of salvation become pure law and salvation is based on mere works. In this case grace is made void."

On January 1, 1933 Moser was appointed to the staff of the Gospel Advocate as the head of the "Text and Context" department.[81] Despite the fact that he was a new addition, his article "Preaching Jesus," drew quick fire from another staff member, R. L. Whiteside.[82] Whiteside agreed that the "foundation facts of the gospel--namely, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ--must be preached" but we must not only preach him as Savior and Priest, but also as King and Lawgiver. Whiteside contended that Christ is preached "when any part of his word is preached . . . no matter what part of the New Testament" is expounded. Thus, preaching the gospel is synonymous with preaching the word or preaching from any part of the New Testament. Whiteside broadened the concept of gospel to include the whole of the New Testament. Moser limited the gospel to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.[83] This was the first salvo in "the Man or the Plan" controversy.[84]

As a result of the tension that grew among the Advocate staff, Moser was, according to Wallace, "dropped."[85] As Wallace described it, the staff (including H. Leo Boles, F. B. Srygley, C. R. Nichol and R. L. Whiteside) objected to Moser's "peculiar ideas" on the conditions of salvation which they believed were "contrary to the gospel."[86] They did not want Moser, as a staff member, to use the Advocate as an official rostrum from which to address the church.

This tension appears in the pages of the Advocate itself. In 1933 R. L. Whiteside began a study of Romans in which he explicitly responds to Moser's The Way of Salvation.[87] Some of this tension was also reflected in Moser's condemnation of those who "pronounce one a heretic simply because he is out of line with others."[88] Despite the problems his convictions caused, Moser could not be quiet. He had to speak despite the fear which keeps others quiet--the fear of being "put out of the synagogue."[89]

Nevertheless, Moser's name last appeared as a staff member in the August 24, 1933 issue of the Advocate shortly after Whiteside's critique. In light of this tension, Brewer's favorable review of Moser's book earlier in that same year was a significant event. It demonstrates that Moser had his supporters. Indeed, the struggle was probably more politically complicated than will ever be known due to the premillennial controversy that was raging at the time.[90]

In 1933 he published three more articles in the Advocate after his dismissal from the staff,[91] but did not publish there again until 1937.[92] These years were difficult ones for the Moser family. During this time Moser was the target of many personal attacks which helped to bring on his near fatal illness.[93] He was "barred from participation in numerous church events," including the Abilene Christian College Lectures.[94] He gave up full-time, located work for a while, and apparently stopped writing. It was, no doubt, a time for licking his wounds.

However, when he returned to writing, he continued his barrage against legalistic preaching. In 1937 Moser published a booklet entitled "Are We Preaching the Gospel?"[95] This booklet reproved ministers for preaching gospel sermons without any gospel in them. "All so-called gospel sermons that ignore the atonement of Christ for sin are without sense and powerless to save. In too many cases," he wrote, "Christ crucified is the 'forgotten Man'."[96]

Moser defined the gospel as Christ crucified for our sins. The "gospel is not that Christ died, but that He died 'for our sins'."[97] This was a crucial point for Moser. He believed that when the gospel is defined as mere facts--the fact of the death, burial and resurrection, then the gospel is not properly defined. The gospel "does not consist in abstract FACTS. It concerns a PERSON. Man is not saved by FACTS, but by a PERSON."[98] Consequently, the gospel sermon needs to not only assert the fact, but explain the meaning of those facts in relation to the person of Christ as Savior. Mere historical facts do not constitute the gospel.

Further, Moser feared that the proclamation of commands to be obeyed is often substituted for the gospel itself. One "can preach the conditions of salvation and not preach the gospel in the strictest sense."[99] The conditions of salvation are not the gospel, but are our response to the gospel. Therefore, when we preach the conditions of salvation apart from the gospel, those conditions "become acts of merit."[100] They become a "mere 'plan' to which man must subscribe" so that one is saved by the plan rather than the man.[101] He noted, "It is possible to make proselytes and sectarians without the gospel, but Christians are not made without it."[102]

During the years prior to writing this booklet, Moser listened attentively to preachers to see whether they proclaimed the gospel or not. He also conducted an analysis of several sermon books available to him.[103] His conclusion was that "the gospel was being neglected in many sermons which were supposed to be gospel sermons."[104] According to Moser, there was an analogy between modernism and the neglect of the gospel among so-called gospel preachers. He compared two sermons books--one by an unnamed restorationist and the other by the modernist Harry Emerson Fosdick. Both, he claimed, lacked any discussion of the meaning of Christ's death for our sins, but they laid stress on the moral example of Jesus. Their mutual point was that Christ died to demonstrate the love of God and to provide a new law by which we might have life if we obeyed. Both contained a "graceless, crossless and bloodless" gospel, which is no gospel at all.[105] Whereas the modernist rejects the gospel, others, according to Moser, have neglected it.[106]

While restorationists have not rejected the gospel like the modernists, according to Moser, there is a real danger that neglect will ultimately lead to rejection. Indeed, neglect is an implicit rejection. The theology that undergirds neglect, and provides a reason for it, is a denial of the gospel itself. It denies the "truth of the gospel."[107] This theology, Moser believed, is rooted in a false construction of the gospel as an abstract plan.

I have observed that those who neglect to give the gospel the proper emphasis are accustomed to speaking of Christianity as a LAW and man's response to the gospel as WORKS. The conditions of salvation are thought of as a 'plan' or 'law' to which man must subscribe. . . And today some speak of Christianity as just another 'law' which demands works. Their forms of thought and expressions would be entirely appropriate for an administration of pure law. They would need no change if the cross of Christ had never existed.[108]

Consequently, when someone can preach from John 3:16 and fail to emphasize the atonement, it is probably because his theology is more suited for law than for grace.[109] Moser, therefore, pled for a reintroduction of the language of grace, atonement and faith into our "gospel speech."[110]

Christ crucified must be preached because there can be no faith without him. One may assert the facts, and believe those facts, but that alone is not biblical faith. "Belief in mere facts is not gospel faith."[111] One may convince another of his error on baptism, and baptize him without faith. He believed the facts and he had the right view of baptism, but he did not trust Christ as his Savior. "He must actually trust in, yield to Christ for salvation."[112] Consequently, Moser pled with his preaching brothers to "explain the MEANING of faith" so that the "purity of the gospel" might be preserved.[113] Faith is the "renunciation of self and any claim to human merit," and "the expression of a lost soul, conscious of its condemnation, reaching out for a Savior."[114] In this way, when repentance, confession and baptism are preached the chief meaning of these responses--faith--will not be neglected. "So, then, the MEANING of the conditions of salvation is the chief point in them. And apart from Christ crucified, they have no meaning."[115]

Just as with The Way of Salvation, G. C. Brewer came to Moser's defense and promoted his pamphlet.[116] He encouraged all preachers, as he himself did, to go back through their recent sermons in order to justify the title "gospel sermons." Indeed, Brewer admitted that he too had "been made to fear that some of us have, in crying against the doctrine of unconditional salvation, gone too far in emphasizing the conditions. In making our salvation depend upon these conditions, which it does, we have attributed value or merit to the conditions; thought of them as works, which they are not." On the other hand, Brewer also admitted that he had never heard anyone define the gospel without mentioning its facts--the death, burial and resurrection of Christ--though he had heard some "who did not put the emphasis upon 'for our sins' that [he] thought should be there." In other words, Brewer believed that Moser criticism was just--the facts have been preached without reference to their meaning.

"Christ Versus a Plan" (1952)

Moser continued this theme with periodic articles in the Gospel Advocate. Two series of articles are worthy of mention. Both are directed at legalistic preaching. One series was directed at legalism on the right (the plan theorists), and the other at legalism on the left (modernists).

The former series was entitled "The Doctrines of the Cross."[117] His first article laid out his basic position. The cross, he wrote, "determines whether man must attempt justification upon the ground of his own righteousness or upon the principle of faith . . . This is the message that must come first in all preaching. It is the foundation of the church that must be laid in each individual case of conversion to Christ."[118] Every text must be interpreted in the light of this principle, and "no subject vitally connected with salvation can possibly be understood except in the light of the cross."[119]

The cross, then, means that we are not under law in the sense that we are "under obligation . . . to live perfectly, to merit [our] salvation."[120] Rather, salvation is offered on the "principle of mercy" which is based upon the death of Christ for our sins.[121] Faith, therefore, has Christ crucified as its object and not a plan for saving himself. When one preaches Christ without the atonement, only commands or laws are preached. When only commands are preached, then there can be no trust in Christ as the Crucified Savior. As a result faith "is no more than a principle of action which moves man to obey, and obeying looks to obedience as the ground of his acceptance with God."[122] This kind of faith leads to works of merit. It is reliance on a "plan of salvation" rather than on the one who is the plan. Christ "is the 'plan'. The merit to save is in him."[123]

The series directed at modernism was entitled "'The Essence of Christianity, According to Paul'--Reviewed."[124] Moser feared that a modernist view of the atonement had invaded the church, and the path had been paved for it by legalistic preaching over the years. Because of a de-emphasis on the atoning blood of Christ as the propitiation for sin, some now conceived of reconciliation as the creation of a subjective experience through the communal love of God apart from the objective work of Christ on the cross. The subjective experience, then, became the ground of reconciliation which is rooted in the universal love of God rather than in the propitiatory work of Christ on the cross. As a result, it is our human love which reconciles us to God. This was yet another form of legalism.

Consequently, for Moser, the legalism of the right and the legalism of the left come back around to meet each other. They both affirmed that human acts or experience were the ground of our relationship with God. Rather than trusting in the person and work of Christ crucified, both legalisms entail some form of self-righteousness or works-righteousness.

In his "Christ Versus a 'Plan'" pamphlet, published by Harding Press in Searcy, Arkansas, Moser gave us his fullest discussion of the "Man or the Plan" controversy. This document began the debate that ultimately exploded a decade later in the Firm Foundation, although, at the time, it did not create a stir among the papers in the brotherhood.[125] The arguments, however, were as old as the 1930s when Moser pressed them then, and would be pressed again by new advocates in the 1960s. Moser's theology, worked out in the 1920s and 1930s, undergirds his pamphlet, and here bore fruit in an attack on the "plan of salvation" as it was conceived by some preachers among the Churches of Christ.

The timing of this document is important. It appeared at the beginning of the institutional controversy when the emphasis was on the pattern of the New Testament, the plan of salvation and strict, precise obedience to that pattern and plan. The soteriological focus of the Churches of Christ was on whether strict obedience to the pattern was necessary for salvation and what exactly that pattern contained. The right and moderate wings of the Churches of Christ were debating the exact details of the pattern so as to determine who was the true Church of Christ. In this context, Moser published a pamphlet which called us back to Christology as the basis of our soteriology. He moved the discussion away from ecclesiology back to Christology. Despite the fact that he was either ignored or lightly dismissed, he initiated a theological shift that would bear fruit in the 1960s after the church was wearied by the internal struggle over institutionalism.

"Many" individuals, according to Moser, believed that while Jesus' death qualified him to give a plan of salvation, the plan itself is the condition of salvation. To preach the "plan" was to preach faith, repentance, confession and baptism.[126] That this was an ordinary way of construing the language is confirmed by A. G. Hobbs, Jr. in a 1948 article entitled "Give the Plan, Brother." The article bemoaned the fact that "some will preach for several days and never tell a sinner how to be saved," that is, they were preaching the man without preaching "the plan."[127] His caution was not only to preach the death and blood of Christ, but also to "make the church and plan of salvation stand out and ring forth as clear as a bell."[128]

Moser's complaint was not that the conditions of salvation are preached, but that they are preached "without a single reference to the cross."[129] The heart of the message is not preached along with the "plan." Moser's pamphlet was a call for preachers to make the "redemptive power of the blood of Jesus" their central message in preaching; to preach Christ as a sin-offering and not merely as an example, teacher, lawgiver or king.[130]

However, Moser's concern was not simply to preach Christ in addition to the plan, or to encourage the preaching of the cross whenever the conditions of salvation are preached. Rather, he believed that the notion of a "plan" of salvation that does not involve Christ crucified is legalistic and encourages a form of human righteousness. The "'plan' theory," as Moser called it, makes Jesus another lawgiver to whom obedience is rendered on the principle of works instead of receiving grace on the principle of faith.[131]

"The 'plan' theory," he wrote, "logically makes the 'plan,' not Christ crucified, the means of salvation."[132] When sinners are invited to obey a plan and be saved, this places the saving power in the plan rather than in the Christ. Even though Christ provided the plan, when the plan is separated from Christ it becomes a means of legal justification. It reduces faith to a principle of action, and makes the act of baptism a legal work by which righteousness is worked or achieved. Faith, therefore, is devoid of trust in a person and is reduced to a mere intellectual belief because of which one acts.[133]

Further, the "'plan' theory," according to Moser, "misconceives the meaning of obedience."[134] According to the "'plan' theory," obedience is submission to the authority of the king. We obey because God has commanded it and only in relation to the principle of law which contains the command. But this reduces baptismal obedience to the "general obligation of obedience" which is salvation "by law through works and not by grace through faith."[135] This places baptism in the broad category of a good work and saps from it the meaning of saving faith itself. Rather, the obedience of faith involves trust in the sin-offering of Jesus Christ. It is an expression of faith, and not a work of obedience to a law. It is not "mere obedience" to a "general obligation," but it is the submission of one's self to Christ through an expression of faith. The obedience that God requires for salvation is submissive, trusting faith and not compliance with a law of works.[136]

The "'plan' theory," then, undermines a gospel view of faith and baptism. It calls for us to submit to a plan rather than submitting to Christ. It looks to the plan rather than to the work of Christ for salvation. As preached by some the plan more naturally functions as a work of merit than as a principle of faith. The danger of the "'plan' theory," according to Moser, is that one is tempted to "consider his obedience to some 'plan' as the ground of his salvation rather than relying upon Christ crucified for pardon."[137] Consequently, Moser summarized the point of his pamphlet with a devout and earnest declaration: "I do with all my heart condemn preaching the conditions of salvation apart from the cross."[138]

An interesting passage in G. C. Brewer's Autobiography emphasizes the importance of Moser's critique.[139] Brewer received a question from a reader concerning the place of confession in the "plan of salvation." The reader wanted to know if the "plan" had "four steps or three,"[140] and if one "dies following baptism without confession with the mouth, what will Jesus do on the judgment day about it?"[141]

Brewer immediately commented on the prominence of the idea of a "plan" in the mind of the reader. He wrote:

He is not alone in this manner of thinking, either. Some of us have observed this in the writing and preaching of some of our young preachers. It is hoped that the attention of these fine brethren will be attracted to this article, and that the point here will be given serious thought by them . . . there seems to be a tendency on the part of some to think of this "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5, 16:26) as a ritual, a legalistic rite, a ceremony comparable to the "divers washings" or purification processes of the Mosaic Law. This is a grievous mistake. To put stress upon a "plan" and the specific items and steps of that plan may lead to a wrong conclusion. We are saved by a person, not by a plan; we are saved by a Savior, not by a ceremony. Our faith is in that divine personage--that living Lord--and not in items and steps and ordinances. We are saved through faith in Christ and on account of our faith in Christ, and not because of a faith in a plan. Sometimes we are led to fear that some people only have faith in faith, repentance, confession and baptism. . . We must trust his grace and rely upon his blood

and look for and expect his healing mercy. To trust a plan is to expect to save yourself by your own works. It is to build according to a blueprint; and if you meet the specifications, your building will be approved by the great Inspector! Otherwise you fail to measure up and you are lost! You could not meet the demands of the law! You could not achieve success![142]

Brewer's response to this reader suggests that he had embraced the language of Moser. Baptism, according to Brewer, is the "only overt act in conversion." But it does not supplement faith. Rather "faith is expressed, actualized, and made perfect by baptism." Baptism is faith "reaching out for Christ" and "taking hold of the outstretched hand of mercy."[143] Therefore, there is no "plan of salvation" in the strictest sense of the word except the Savior himself.[144]

The popular intensity of this "plan" construct is illustrated by Brewer in another chapter about the baptismal confession.[145] He recalled visiting with an elder, a dying man who recounted his religious pilgrimage. He had always waited for some kind of religious experience to assure him of his salvation, but as he lay dying, he was uncertain of his hope. He proclaimed his belief in Christ and asked Brewer if he had "faith enough to be saved". Brewer quoted Acts 22:16 and called upon him to rely upon the mercies of Christ. He did not doubt the Lord, he responded, but only himself. Nevertheless, he was willing "to give up and obey and trust his grace and help and salvation." After a few more exchanges, the dying man asked to be baptized. Brewer baptized him without asking for a formal confession. After the baptism, the elder strenuously objected that Brewer did not "take the man's confession." The elder pursued the newly baptized man in order to dissuade him of his baptism's validity. Brewer's final comment is enlightening. "The man made the confession that the Bible requires," he wrote, "but he did not make the confession that ritualists require." "Brethren," he added, "do you see the difference?"

"The Gist of Romans" (1957)

Moser practically withdrew from publishing after the appearance of his "Christ Versus a Plan" pamphlet.[146] During this time, he worked on his thematic commentary on the book of Romans entitled The Gist of Romans. It was first printed in 1957, with a second edition in 1958.[147]

The book's theme reflects the emphases of Moser's writing over the past three decades. His concern was still legalistic preaching, and the subtle legalism to which it gives expression. His purpose was to give "an exposition of the fundamental doctrines of salvation through Christ" as they appear in Romans. He was set for the "defense of the cross" as opposed to the defense of the "conditions of salvation, or some theory."[148] Indeed, while alot of attention is given to the book of Acts in our preaching because Acts tells us "what was done in becoming a child of God," more attention needs to be given to Romans because it teaches us the "meaning of what was done."[149] The preacher, according to Moser, must not only know what to tell someone to do to be saved, he must first understand what salvation is. Only when one understands the "fundamental doctrine of the atonement, of grace, and of faith" can anyone be a gospel preacher.[150]

The context of Moser's work was the same as his pamphlet in 1952. His introduction to the text of Romans was not historical or critical, but contemporary and theological. It explains the meaning of salvation, the atonement of Christ, the role of the conditions of salvation and the principles involved in salvation (i.e., grace and faith). His polemic is consistent and unyielding. We find here his characteristic emphasis on faith as trust in the crucified Christ. It is not a mere principle of action, but the acceptance of the atonement through submissive trust.[151] The condition of salvation is faith, and this faith is expressed through repentance, confession and baptism. These are not a "plan" or a "scheme," but the trusting acceptance of the sin-offering.[152] In this context, Moser comments: "One of the most difficult truths for man to accept is that he has a real Savior. He desires that Jesus tell him what to do to save himself. It is astonishing how many and who they are who have such a view."[153] This was essentially the view that Moser critiqued in his earlier pamphlet. His criticism from the 1920s to the 1950s had been unrelenting.

While Moser offered this critique of legalistic preaching, his main concern was the theology that lies underneath it. The issue of the "gospel invitation" is a case in point. Moser contended that some, based on the preaching they have heard, might conclude that "we have done our part, we have rendered obedience" as if their obedience was the ground on which God saves them.[154] Rather, the issue of the gospel invitation is "Christ crucified, Christ man's sin-bearer, Christ the Savior." Whoever walks down the aisle to confess his faith and be baptized is exchanging "his own righteousness, his morality, and his despair for Christ, for a Savior." He is "not offering his obedience in exchange for salvation," but is "accepting Christ as sin-bearer, Savior, Redeemer."[155] The issue, then, rests in whether the act of baptism is a work of human righteousness (even if it is in obedience to a divine command, just as morality is) or whether it is faith accepting the gift of God's righteousness in Jesus Christ. The former is legalism, and the latter is gospel obedience. Moser feared that the former dominated the teaching and preaching of his brothers.

He was not alone in this fear. Despite the fact that in the last year of his life Brewer was contending with digressives who, in his view, were undermining the identity of the Churches of Christ,[156] one of his greatest fears concerned the preaching of his more conservative brothers. In the final pages of his Autobiography, which was written in his last months of life, he testified to the same fears as Moser.

I have frequently said that we sing a much better Gospel than we preach. I believe with all my heart that this is true. Too many of us do not preach Christianity; we preach "churchanity." Too many of us instead of preaching Christ, preach a creed. And too many of us instead of trusting Christ, depend upon working out our own salvation as though this means that we should achieve it by works of merit in this life. If we believe the songs we sing, none of us would have this kind of a hope which practically amounts to no hope at all. If we believe the songs that we sing, we will never be doubting our salvation. We will be rejoicing because our names are written in the Book of Life.[157]

Moser and Brewer, two men who had shared the burden of proclaiming the gospel of grace, both feared the context of the mid-1950s. Both saw the danger of legalism; both saw the need for trusting Christ alone for salvation. The 1960s, with the turmoil of the "Man or the Plan" controversy, saw a brotherhood coming to conscious reflection on the doctrine of grace and a renewal of the doctrine of "God's righteousness" as the ground of salvation.[158]

Historical Interpretation

On January 24, 1946 the Gospel Advocate published a lengthy article by Roy Key entitled "The Righteousness of God".[159] Key articulated the themes of Moser's The Way of Salvation without mentioning Moser by name. Indeed, in a letter to G. C. Brewer in 1955 Key acknowledged his indebtedness to Moser.[160] He argued that the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is the gift of God's righteousness through faith. Faith-righteousness is a divine righteousness which God gives to the one who trusts in Jesus as Savior whereas works-righteousness is a human righteousness which one earn for himself through obedience to law. For members of the Church of Christ, according to Key, the tendency is to "trust in the law for salvation." It is possible, he wrote, "to reject the righteousness that God offers through faith in Jesus as Redeemer and look to a plan or system of justification, rather than to the one who died on our behalf."[161] He feared that many had placed their hope in the system or the plan instead of Christ. The plan is, indeed, "God's revelation of man's true way of responding to the offered grace," but "if this 'law' becomes foremost in our minds and affections, then true faith as personal reliance upon Christ is weakened. This leads more and more to legalistic Pharisaism."[162] Key believed this is what had happened in the light of calling repentance, confession and baptism "steps" of salvation in a "plan of salvation." "The personal element [became] overshadowed by the legal."[163]

Apparently, Key's article shocked some readers of the Advocate. G. C. Brewer received several letters questioning the article.[164] It promoted "some ideas," one reader said, "that I have not been accustomed to hearing." In response, Brewer commended the article as substantially summarizing the Pauline teaching of the "righteousness of God." The phrase "not been accustomed to hearing" caught Brewer's attention since it was his own experience that many were "astonished at this teaching" and others were "offended by it at first." Indeed, Brewer was anxious about both the ignorance and the "false teaching" that prevailed concerning Paul's gospel of God's righteousness.

As a younger preacher Brewer was influenced by ministers who denied the concept of imputed righteousness. He summarized the teaching of one of these ministers, whom he highly respected, as this:

You hear people talk about God's righteousness or Christ's righteousness being imputed to man--of the righteousness of Christ covering a man like a garment, etc. This is all false doctrine. The Bible says, 'He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous' (1 John 3:7); and David says, 'All thy commandments are righteousness.' [Psalm 119:172, JMH.] So you see that a man who does the commandments of God is righteous--no one else is. You can have no righteousness except the righteousness that you do.[165]

In his youngest years Brewer embraced this teaching. He taught the same message and used the same Scriptures to defend it.

However, he "learned the truth on this point" when he began to study Romans to see what it teaches rather than studying "to find something to offset what someone else teaches."[166] Brewer underwent a theological shift from a legalistic concept of faith--a faith where we have no righteousness except our own so that we contribute to the righteousness that achieves for us a righteous standing before God--to an affirmation of the divine righteousness which is given to us through faith. It was a change from the legalism of works-righteousness to a Pauline doctrine of salvation by grace through faith.

One of Brewer's consistent themes was salvation by "faith" and not by "doing." This was his primary point at the 1952 Abilene Christian College Lectureship.[167] God's part is giving, not selling; and man's part is believing, not doing. Salvation is "not a matter of law;" a matter of doing or achieving or working.[168] We are free from law, any law, because God has "offered us a righteousness which comes to us on account of our faith in Christ Jesus."[169] To affirm otherwise is to render void the grace of God in Christ. If "we are just as righteous as we do--that is, if we have no righteousness but our own, which we achieve by doing the commandments--by observing laws--we make the death of Christ unnecessary."[170]

Further, in his commendation of Key's article, Brewer noted that many of his contemporaries had made a similar change. They had begun in legalism but now teach a doctrine of righteousness by faith and "not by doing." To counter the charge that his teaching was innovative, Brewer reminded his readers that J. W. McGarvey, E. G. Sewell, T. W. Caskey, David Lipscomb and James A. Harding "knew the truth on this great question and taught it faithfully." "Harding," he added, "was especially strong on this doctrine."[171] He recalled that on one occasion he saw "tears flow down [Harding's] cheeks and his countenance brilliant with the very thought as he shouted the story of the rich provision that God had made for our salvation."[172] Brewer saw himself in continuity with the Lipscomb-Harding segment of the Churches of Christ. He believed that "our brethren had always taught the truth upon this point . . . but some of us may have given so much attention to certain errors that are connected with the subject that we only refuted the error and didn't make the truth plain."[173] Because of this claim of continuity, it is important to take a closer look at our history here.

Nashville Bible School and the Theology of Grace

David Lipscomb and James A. Harding began the Nashville Bible School with nine students on October 5, 1891; one hundred years ago today. This institution, now known as David Lipscomb University, has had a profound influence on the history of Churches of Christ in the twentieth century. My interest here is the doctrine of grace present in the school in the last decade of the nineteenth century.

In 1968, at the age of 91, Stanford Chambers recalled his days at the Nashville Bible School in the mid-1890s. He remembered that Harding proclaimed an especially powerful doctrine of grace. "To Harding," he recalled, ". . . the Holy Spirit was a personality and His help in our infirmities was real. Salvation 'by grace . . . through faith' rather than by 'works' or deeds of merit was a cherished truth."[174] The students, he remembered, were divided into two camps on the issue, but that the leaders of the institution were strong advocates of grace. This can be confirmed by looking at their writings of the period.

David Lipscomb believed that there are two kinds of righteousness. There is a righteousness which God gives through his gracious imputation of the righteousness of Christ--a righteousness from above, and there is a righteousness which we possess by our obedience to law--a righteousness from below. Imputed righteousness, the righteousness from above, "comes only when a man trusts Jesus and does what he can to obey him."[175] While one is required to live "a life like that of God," this is done "by faith" as the medium through which God imputes righteousness. Lipscomb's doctrine of grace is well illustrated in the following paragraph:

Even when a man's heart is purified by faith, and his affections all reach out towards God and seek conformity to the life of God it is imperfect. His practice of the righteousness of God falls far short of the divine standard. The flesh is weak, and the law of sin reigns in our members; so that we fall short of the perfect standard of righteousness; but if we trust God implicitly and faithfully endeavor to do his will, he knows our frame, knows our weaknesses, and as a father pities his children, so the Lord pities our infirmities and weaknesses, and imputes to us the righteousness of Christ. So Jesus stands as our justification and our righteousness, and our life is hid with Christ in God.[176]

James A. Harding began a new paper in 1899 entitled The Way. In its second issue, Harding commented that it is "right and appropriate" that The Way should discuss "grace through faith" at the beginning of its publication.[177] This signals the centrality of the theme for Harding. He rejected any law principle as the means of justification. "There is no hope," he wrote, "that any of us can be justified by the deeds of the law (whether Gentiles under law in the heart, Jews under law of Moses, or Christians under law of Christ)."[178] Rather, it is on the basis of grace, not law, that "wherever an [immersed believer] is, if he is daily, diligently seeking the truth, if he is promptly walking in it as he finds it, we may expect him to be saved. . . But for the man who is contentedly abiding in error there is no such hope."[179]

J. N. Armstrong, who was the son-in-law of James A. Harding, was a teacher at the Nashville Bible School and later President of Harding College.[180] "Doing right," he wrote, is not the "admission fee" of entering the eschatological kingdom "or else none could enter."[181] No one can enter on their own righteousness. Who, then, can enter? According to Armstrong, there are two groups of people: "those against whom God does not count sin and those against whom he does count sin." The former are under grace and can enter, but the latter are under law and cannot. The one under grace "has forsaken his old way and turned to God and is humbly submitting to him, bending his energies to do all that God requires;" but the one under law "is following his own way, has not turned to God, but is living in rebellion in his heart and life."[182] The ground of salvation, according to Armstrong, is that "I accept the life (blood) of Christ as a sacrifice for my sins" when I believe, repent and am baptized.[183] F. W. Mattox remembers that he learned his view of grace from Armstrong and the biblical roots of this view were later confirmed through his friendship with Moser.[184]

Robert. H. Boll enrolled in the Nashville Bible School in 1895 and eventually came to lead the premillennial segment of the Churches of Christ. In the early 1900s, however, he was a close associate of Harding and Armstrong, and he reflected their doctrine of grace, just as he had sided with them on the issue of grace while at the Nashville Bible School.[185] He believed that God demanded that "man must be righteous" and that no one could "stand before God, except on the ground of true, absolute righteousness."[186] Because of sin, God made a new way, a "way of clothing man in a new righteousness, a righteousness not their own, but freely given to them from God." It is a "gift of righteousness" from above where we are "clothed in [God's] righteousness."[187] We accept this gift through faith, but the righteousness is not our own. It is the righteousness of Christ, as reflected in the old evangelical hymn, "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness."[188] In the context of this perspective on grace, Boll asked, "How much imperfection will God tolerate?" He believed that no one can look into the heart of the Almighty, but quoting 1 John 1:7, he wrote, "if we aim high and fall below the mark, there is honor" and if we "fall below the mark, there is grace and forgiveness, for we have followed Christ" by aiming high.[189]

R. C. Bell was a student at the Nashville Bible School, and later a teacher with Harding and Armstrong at Potter Bible College, and then with Armstrong at Western Bible and Literary College and Cordell Christian College. He would later become President of Thorp Springs Christian College, Dean of Harding College, and a teacher at Abilene Christian College.[190] Bell was one of Moser's teachers and his ally throughout the years.[191] Both J. D. Thomas and F. W. Mattox testify that Bell's friendship with Moser was long-standing, and that their views on grace were exactly the same.[192] One of Bell's favorite quips is said to have been, "If you get Romans, God gets you," which was also one of Moser's favorite proverbial sayings.[193] The righteousness of God, according to Bell, is God's gift of righteousness by which he justifies the sinner through faith.[194]

G. C. Brewer also studied at the Nashville Bible School (1905-1911). His emphasis on the crucified Christ is apparent in a series of sermons he delivered in Ft. Worth, Texas in the fall of 1927.[195] All the sermons were Christ-centered messages, and reflect the Lipscomb-Harding tradition. For example, commenting on Galatians 2:21, he proclaimed: "There you are, my friends. Righteousness is not by the law--is not by any law of works, either human or divine--that is, the righteousness that commends us to God, that saves--is from Christ. The song of every real Christian--everyone who knows the Bible--is:"

My hope is built on nothing less

Than Jesus' blood and righteousness;

I dare not trust the sweetest frame

But wholly lean on Jesus' name.[196]

The gospel of grace through the imputed righteousness of Christ is clear in this series of sermons. "Only through the righteousness of our Redeemer," Brewer preached, "shall we see the face of God . . . You cannot be saved by a legal system."[197]

Interestingly, in 1927 Brewer had already experienced and was concerned about what would come to be called the "Man or the Plan" controversy. He tells this story:

A preacher once preached two or three sermons on the love of God and of his gracious provisions for man's salvation when a brother approached him and asked: "When are you going to begin to preach the gospel?"

He meant, of course, when was the preacher going to preach on the things man must do to be saved--faith, repentance and baptism. He wanted the preacher to prove that he--the brother--was right in his claims, and that his neighbors were all wrong. Simply a partisan desire to establish his creed. May the Lord have mercy on such brethren.

. . .this obedience must come as a result of hearing and believing the sweet old story of Jesus and his love. The word gospel means "good news" or "glad tidings." In what does the good news consist? Is it not, beloved, in the fact that man was lost, perishing, without God and without hope, and that God saw him "plunged in deep distress" and loved him to the extent that he sent Jesus to the earth and to the cross to redeem man? That is the gospel--the power that attracts men.[198]

According to Brewer, when we exemplify our trust in Jesus as Savior through baptism, we are thereby perfected through the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Indeed, "this same soul is continuously perfect by imputation as long as that soul walks in the light and has a connection with God through Christ".[199] This is true despite our weaknesses and our faults, and "in some respects," he says, "we are still more in need of the mercy of God than we were in the beginning." Yet, "if we continue to rely upon him and to serve him, we have the promise that we shall be presented faultless before his throne."[200] Brewer viewed baptism as the moment of entrance into Christ through faith in Christ as Savior. It was an act of faith which hopes in the "merit of Christ." Once "committed to Christ, [the Christian] continues to obey him as best he can, not because his salvation depends upon his perfect obedience, but because he is committed to the Saviour and because he loves him and therefore keeps his commandments. Failure to reach perfection will not mean a failure to reach heaven."[201] Thus, after baptism, while we continue "to be obedient and submissive," our salvation "does not depend upon the amount of work done or the number of acts performed."[202]

My point here is not to give a thorough theological analysis of each of these men's positions. Rather, it is simply to indicate that Moser's doctrine of grace has historic roots. He reflected a doctrine of grace that was especially, though not exclusively, associated with the Nashville Bible School in the last decade of the nineteenth century. Exactly how Moser came to stand in that same tradition is a matter of supposition, but it may have been through his teacher R. C. Bell at Thorp Springs Christian College or he may have been, as his life-long friend F. W. Mattox remembers, self-taught from Romans.[203]

Opposition to Moser

Despite these theological roots in the Nashville Bible School, Moser was seen as the epitome of a denominationalist both in Texas and east of the Mississippi. His writings were dismissed, and he was condemned as a Baptist by his opponents. This reputation continues today. For example, a recent that K. C. Moser in his The Way of Salvation "formulated a concept of conflict between law and grace which the restorationists had not dreamed would ever be a doctrinal problem among brethren."[204] Still others regard his views as "Calvinistic"[205] or "marred by the phobia of every denominationalist."[206] Sixty years after it was published, The Way of Salvation is still the object of attack.[207]

Showalter, along with R. L. Whiteside, was one of the first public opponents of Moser. When Moser's article "Can the Gospel Be Obeyed?" was accidentally published in his absence, the next week Showalter gave it a harsh reply. Moser had written that the gospel consisted in "a person, and not mere facts." The gospel is the death of Jesus for our sins and his resurrection for our justification. "The gospel is not simply facts about Jesus," but is the good news of salvation through grace. "The gospel consists in a person in which to trust . . . Commands are not the gospel. The gospel is appropriated by means of obedience to commands, but commands are no more the gospel than eating is food." Since faith is the principle of salvation, the acceptance of the gospel is through faith, and "faith that saves means trust" so that "to believe the gospel is to believe in, trust in, Christ crucified, buried and raised for our justification." "To believe the gospel," then, "is to obey the gospel," but that faith must be expressed in the required manner.[208]

This article was more than Showalter could take. He understood Moser as denying the ancient gospel itself. "Brother Moser," he wrote, "does not believe that obedience is necessary to salvation or that baptism is for the remission of sins." According to Showalter, Moser means that "responsible beings are saved by faith alone."[209] Moser replied that he had been misunderstood.[210] He explained that his purpose was to exalt faith so that its proper relation to baptism might be understood. He feared that many preachers were isolating baptism from the principle of faith as if baptism is the actual thing that "changes [the] state" of a sinner to a saint.[211] He contended that it is faith that does this, but God requires that one express that faith in baptism before he bestows his mercy.

Moser illustrated his meaning by noting that he had read many sermons in the Firm Foundation which Showalter would call "gospel sermons," but they do not have "as much as one single reference to the blood of Christ . . . Indeed," he wrote, "I have heard sermons delivered through a three Sunday meeting without a single emphasis on the grace of God, the blood of Christ, but with baptism held constantly before the people."[212] Thus, he wrote, "I am accused of belittling baptism because I affirm that faith in Christ has a place in obedience to the gospel as well as baptism."[213]

Showalter, however, was incredulous. He did not accept Moser's explanation and claimed that his reaction indicates that he "simply hit the nail on the head and drove home a solar plexus blow--making clearly apparent to the reading public what Brother Moser would fain have kept concealed."[214] Further, Showalter thought Moser had incorrectly perceived the teaching of the brethren. They do not believe "baptism alone constitutes obedience," but "they teach that faith, repentance and baptism are all commands of the gospel and must be obeyed in order to the remission of sins."[215]

This exchange in 1934 is significant for several reasons. Theologically, it is one of the first exchanges between Moser and one of his detractors on the subject of grace. While the discussion reflects some semantic confusion, it also points to the important question of whether faith saves or whether faith and baptism save. Are we saved by faith when we are immersed or are we saved by faith and baptism when we are immersed? In other words, are we saved by a faith that works or are we saved by faith and works? The critical issue is the relationship between faith and baptism and their connection with salvation. Historically, it reflects the negative response Moser received to his ideas. Showalter regarded him as a traitor who had surrendered to Baptist theology.[216] Further, it molded public opinion in Texas about Moser for the next few decades. Moser no longer published in the Firm Foundation, and was excluded from the ACC annual lectureship. Showalter was the opinion leader in Texas churches. He had the mantle of Austin McGary, the founder of the Firm Foundation, and Texas would not receive Moser after the Firm Foundation had condemned him.

Despite historic roots in the Nashville Bible School, the climate in the east was changing. Foy E. Wallace, Jr. was appointed editor of the Gospel Advocate in 1930, and though he resigned in 1934, his replacement was John T. Hinds, another Texan. Both Wallace and Hinds were regular contributors to the Firm Foundation in the 1920s. Hinds himself was the front page editor of the paper. As a result, Wallace and Hinds brought Texas attitudes and convictions to the Tennessee paper. They represented the tradition of Austin McGary and J. D. Tant.[217] Many Texans were even afraid that Wallace had gone soft when he went to the Advocate,[218] but he demonstrated otherwise in the premillennial controversy. At bottom, in the 1930s, the Texans moved into Tennessee and turned the Advocate toward a more conservative approach. As a result, the influence of the Nashville Bible School, especially on the doctrine of grace, was curtailed though not extinguished. While Moser was permitted to publish in the Advocate, presumably because of his relationship with Brewer,[219] he was regarded with suspicion by Wallace, Whiteside and Hinds.

Because the Advocate was now a mixture of Texan conservativism and the Lipscomb-Harding doctrine of grace, the Advocate reflected both sides of the dispute, which it still does. Moser and Brewer would publish articles that reflected the Nashville Bible School tradition. Others, such as R. L. Whiteside and Guy N. Woods, would reflect the more conservative tradition that is today reflected in the Firm Foundation.[220] The difference between the two traditions is illustrated by the way the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness is treated.[221] Lipscomb, Harding, Boll, Armstrong, Brewer and Moser all believed that this was the teaching of Scripture. However, Wallace, Whiteside and Woods all rejected it as denominational and Calvinistic.[222]

I believe there was a shift in the east which was introduced by the west. When Wallace came to Tennessee, the Texas conservativism of the late 19th century moved the Advocate from a moderate to a more conservative position. This involved a shift on the doctrine of grace as well as shifts on other issues such as rebaptism, pacificism, and personal indwelling of the Spirit.

Theological Analysis

Given the reactions of Showalter, Wallace and Whiteside to Moser as well the persistent advocacy of Moser and Brewer, it is clear that there was a perceived difference between these two groups. The Lipscomb-Harding tradition and the McGary-Tant tradition were butting heads in the second generation of the life of the two papers, the Advocate and the Firm Foundation. The "Man or the Plan" controversy was not a new phenomena in the 1960s, but had it roots in the 1930s, and may have been prefigured in the debate on rebaptism between the Advocate and the Firm Foundation in the 1890s. The 1960s and 1990s do not reflect a new struggle, but an old one which goes back to the emergence of Churches of Christ in the late nineteenth century.

My concern in this secion, however, is not historical but theological. What theological point was at stake in the "Man or the Plan" controversy? Why did Moser's work receive such a negative reaction, and why was Moser so insistent on his point? My purpose here is to lay bare the theological concerns of both groups so that we might recognize their similarities as well as their essential difference.

Emphasis on the Man

Moser's lifelong concern was to combat legalism, whether it arose from the left in modernism or from the right among his own preaching brothers. From the left he saw a denial of the atonement, and from the right he saw its neglect which was a practical denial. Moser reflects a lifelong attempt to defend, explain and apply the atonement of Christ in the context of the Churches of Christ. His theology emphasized salvation by grace through faith. This excludes any legal principle of justification by works. The contrasts are strong in Moser: grace versus law, faith versus works, imputed versus inherent righteousness, divine versus human righteousness. From his own theological standpoint, the Churches of Christ were in danger of, if not already, succumbing to a subtle legalism. Three topics effectively summarize Moser's concerns: legalistic preaching, legalistic justification, and legalistic sanctification.

Legalistic Preaching

What does "preaching the gospel" mean? For Moser, the gospel is preaching the death of Jesus for our sins and his resurrection for our justification. Preaching the gospel is preaching the atonement of Christ; it is to proclaim Christ as sin-bearer and our sacrifice. Moser claimed that he had heard and read sermons which did not proclaim the gospel even though they claimed to be gospel sermons. He had heard sermons on baptism that did not reflect on the meaning of that institution in relation to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He had heard sermons on the plan of salvation without a single reference to the gospel itself, and yet they were called "gospel sermons."

The difference between Moser and his disputants is their respective definitions of the gospel. The standard definition of the gospel was that it contains facts to be believed, commands to be obeyed, and promises to be enjoyed.[223] Consequently, when one preaches baptism, he is preaching the gospel because the gospel commands it. Further, some defined the gospel as equivalent to preaching the word so that any sermon from the New Testament, whether it is on ethics, ecclesiology or eschatology, was preaching the gospel.[224] Gospel, therefore, is anything that the New Testament says. In essence, gospel becomes a law with a different content than the Mosaic law. Gospel preaching, then, calls for obedience to a new law, and all the law, for salvation.

Moser objected to this conception of gospel preaching. It mixes law and gospel. When the preaching of faith, repentance and baptism is divorced from the atonement of Christ, it is preaching a law without a sacrifice for sin, and is no longer gospel at all. Faith, repentance and baptism are responses to the gospel, but they are not constitutive of the gospel itself. The gospel is God's saving action; not ours. It is the shed blood of Jesus as a propitiation for our sins. Faith, repentance and baptism cannot share in that propitiation. They can only receive it. When we conceive of baptism as part of the gospel (that is, the righteousness by which we stand before God), then we have made baptism part of the atonement. The result is, according to Moser, that baptism is conceived as an act of works-righteousness whereby we achieve a standing before God based on our works in addition to Christ's work. God's part is one act of righteousness and our part is another act of righteousness which together constitute the righteousness by which we stand before God. Thus, we contribute to the righteousness by which we are justified.

Legalistic Justification

The most important contrast for Moser was the one between divine and human righteousness. This contrasts the grace which gives God's righteousness as a gift and a law which is obeyed to achieve righteousness or works-righteousness of itself. It contrasts a faith which receives the gift of righteousness and works which measure up to a standard of righteousness. The righteousness by which we stand before God is, according to Moser, the imputation of divine righteousness through faith in the atonement. It is not our righteousness, but God's righteousness. It is not something we have done, but something we have received.

Moser feared that baptism was not only isolated from the atonement, but also from faith itself. Baptism was preached as the final step in a series of commandments as if one were climbing a ladder. Each rung on the ladder was isolated from the others as if baptism stood on its own--that it was the supreme work which itself changes the sinner into a saint. He feared that baptism was conceived as a work of righteousness which we do in obedience to law so that our baptism is an act of righteousness by which we gain righteousness, or contribute to our righteousness. We are righteous, then, only when we do something righteous, and baptism is that act of righteousness which makes us righteous with our own righteousness. This, then, was God's plan for making us righteous, that is, when we did something righteous in obedience to the law of Christ.

For Moser, this is a mixture of law and grace. Faith is the principle of salvation, not works. Faith is the natural correlative to grace. Faith passively receives what God actively gives. Faith receives righteousness; it does not work it up on its own. Faith, for Moser, is obedience to the gospel, not to a law. It is our response to God's gracious offer; it receives God's promise. Rather than an intellectual principle of action which motivates us to be baptized, faith is trusting in Christ as Savior and submitting to him as Lord.

God could, if he so desired, save by means of faith alone apart from any act of submission since faith is the principle of salvation itself. However, when God requires an expression of faith as a condition of the bestowal of that grace, then God will not bestow it until faith has been expressed. The importance of baptism, then, is not that it is some act of righteousness by which we contribute to our righteous standing, or make ourselves righteous, but its meaning is derived from its nature as an expression of faith. Faith saves when it is expressed in baptism, but it is the faith that saves. Moser does not deny that baptism is a condition of salvation in the sense that baptism is a required expression of faith, but he does deny that baptism is a condition of salvation in the sense that it is coordinate with faith. In other words, faith and baptism are not equals. One is an expression of the other, and as long as it is expressive of that faith it fulfills its proper function. When it functions independent of faith (as in infant baptism) or as an equal to faith (as a rung on the ladder of legalistic justification), then it fails to function biblically.

Legalistic Sanctification

Moser is concerned that Christianity can be made into a legal system of seeking our own righteousness just as the Jews turned the Mosaic law into seeking their own righteousness.[225] The principle of justification is faith and our view of sanctification must not undermine that principle. If sanctification is pictured as the pursuit to maintain our righteous standing through the righteousness of our works, then this undermines the principle of justification. We are righteous by God's gift of righteousness in justification, and we do not add to this righteousness by our own good works through sanctification. The purpose of sanctification is to conform to the image of Christ, to grow toward Christ, but it is not the basis of our righteousness before God. The principle of faith, not works, is the means by which we receive and continue to stand in the state of justification through imputation. By this imputation we are always perfect before God as he continually credits righteousness to our accounts through faith.

Moser opposed a view of sanctification which sees our life of faith as contributing to the righteousness by which we are saved. This would be salvation by works rather than by faith. According to this notion, when our past sins are forgiven, then we start with a clean, but blank slate. It is our task to fill the slate with righteousness, and God expects a certain standard of righteousness or else we will lose our standing before him. In other words, staying saved depends on how righteous we are; it depends on being good enough to stay saved. Moser sees this as a reintroduction of the principle of works which undermines the doctrine of justification by faith.

Moser was not opposed to works, nor did he deny the need and goal of sanctification. Rather, he rooted sanctification in the principle of faith rather than works. Sanctification is an expression of faith. Faith will express itself in works, and if it does not, then it cannot be true faith. Consequently, it is not "faith and works" which save, as if they were coordinate, but a "faith that works" which saves. Faith must remain the principle because it is the only appropriate response to grace. Works are expressions of the faith by which we receive the imputation of God's righteousness, but they do not contribute to the righteousness of our standing before God. However, where there are no works, then there is no faith, and thus no salvation.

Conclusion

It is clear, I think, why Moser emphasized the man rather than the plan. He believed that "the plan" was understood as a legal system by which we achieve our own righteousness. He thought the plan had been divorced from the atonement of Christ, and obedience to the plan had supplanted faith as the principle of salvation. This development was a denial of the gospel itself and turned Christianity into a law code to which one must measure up. Consequently, Moser wanted to return to the themes of atonement, grace and faith as a means of countering this development. He emphasized the man because it is more important than the plan, and because the plan had been abstracted from the man and made into a law. As a law, it was no longer good news.

Emphasis on the Plan

The 1930s were a decade of frequent debates between denominational groups and the Churches of Christ. The denominational debaters often made the same accusations of legalism as Moser. It is no surprise, then, that Moser was considered a traitor who had joined the Baptist cause. It is also no surprise that in the context of these debates, the plan would be given emphasis. To emphasize the plan was to emphasize what was distinctive about the Churches of Christ and this served as a partial basis of our identity.

However, this was no mere contention over a distinctive as if we were only concerned to distinguish ourselves from others. Rather, the restoration of the ancient gospel was at stake. The plan was the means by which God had determined to save humanity, and if the plan is not preached and defended, then many will be lost. The emphasis on the plan, therefore, was rooted in a soteriological motive rather than a sociological one.[226] Any negative criticism of the plan was seen as endangering the salvation of souls. What, then, are the soteriological principles which an emphasis on the plan seeks to maintain? I think they are primarily three: (1) the necessity of an human response to grace; (2) the necessity of an obedient faith; and (3) the necessity of sanctification or good works. These were couched polemically as denials of the popularly-conceived Calvinistic doctrines of grace only, faith only and antinomianism.

Calvinistic Grace Only.

"Grace only" or "wholly out of grace" were red-flag words among us in the 1930s, and they still are. They express an historic position from which we wish to distance ourselves. The words are rooted in sixteenth-century Protestant themes and we tend to immediately equate them with an unconditional predestianarianism. The words "grace alone" signal to some that no human response is necessary to the offer of the gospel. The terminology, it is thought, buys into the whole Calvinistic system. "Grace alone," then, means that you believe salvation is unconditional.[227] Consequently, as Whiteside suggested to Moser, you must be either an Augustinian predestinarian or a universalist.[228]

Of course, the point is neither to deny nor undermine grace. Those who emphasize the plan affirm that the blood of Jesus is the only cleansing power, and that mercy alone moved God to provide this grace. In terms of the meritorious ground of salvation and God's motive, grace alone saves.[229] God did for us what we could not do for ourselves and he did it even though we were his enemies.

Therefore, the theological reason for avoiding "grace alone" terminology is not that there is no such concept in Scripture. Rather, the theological reason is to preserve the necessity of a human response. It is to preserve the active role of the sinner in appropriating God's grace. It is to preserve "man' part" without denying God's part. It is to preserve the role of faith.

Calvinistic Faith Only.

"Faith only" or "faith alone" were also red-flag words. This was the major bone of contention between denominationalists, especially Baptists, and the Churches of Christ. The specific point of the language in a polemical context was to eliminate baptism from the plan of salvation. This, of course, struck at the heart of our soteriological identity. Baptism for the remission of sins had been a distinctive element of the restoration movement since 1827.[230] To give ground here was to deny our heritage, and, more importantly, to deny an explicit teaching of Scripture.

When Moser began to talk about faith as the principle of salvation and subordinated baptism to faith, he was quickly interpreted as siding with the Baptists. "Faith," he could write, "is the only thing that can save."[231] Or, "Believing is the condition of gracious justification."[232] In the light of these kinds of statements, Showalter surmised that Moser did not believe that obedience was "necessary for salvation or that baptism is for the remission of sins."[233]

The critical soteriological point was, therefore, to preserve baptism as a condition of salvation. Whatever threatened this theological point must be rejected since the premise is clearly articulated in Scripture. It appeared to many that Moser was giving all the credit to faith and did not give baptism its proper role in the plan of salvation. This was tantamount to saying that baptism was an unnecessary addendum to faith.

Antinomianism.

Whenever the category of "works" is devalued, there is always the danger of antinomianism. While this term rarely appears in our literature, it is this theological tradition which was opposed when we emphasized salvation by works as well as by faith.[234] If we denied the necessity of works for salvation, it was feared, then not only would "faith alone" reign supreme, but believers would begin to behave as they pleased. What was at stake was the Lordship (Kingship) and authority of Christ over the lives of his people. The necessity of works must be proclaimed or else the lives of believers will degenerate into immorality, worldliness and selfishness.

Moser objected to the notion that "faith and works" save. Faith is the principle of salvation, not works. To think otherwise would be to mix grace and law. Works are an expression of faith, but not the principle of salvation itself. It is not "faith and works" but a "faith that works." Moser, then, gave preeminence to faith as trust in Jesus. This was perceived as antinomian in character because it subordinated works to faith.

The fear of antinomianism is not pointless. It is present in the New Testament where Peter and Jude decry the rise of ungodliness in the name of grace and liberty (2 Peter 2:19; Jude 4). However, Moser was not an antinomian.[235] He believed true faith would express itself in works of obedience and motivate the child of God to grow in holiness. Nevertheless, his opposition between grace and law, between the principles of faith and works, was interpreted as antinomian.

Theologically, the necessity of works, as obedience to the law of God, must be retained in our soteriology. Rebellious disobedience reflects the heart of an unbeliever, but submissive obedience reflects the heart of faith. Since one's works evidence the heart, the works will give evidence of faith or unbelief. The evil heart of unbelief shows itself in disobedience to the law of God.

Conclusion

Moser's opponents were not wild-eyed radicals. They were believers who were deeply concerned about the above three issues. They believed that a theology of grace must maintain the necessity of a human response, the necessity of baptism and the necessity of works in the Christian life. This focus points to the parameters of the doctrine of grace without, however, attempting to understand what grace itself is. These emphases, while important, arose in the polemical context of debates. As Moser attempted to provide a theological exposition of the doctrine of grace, he was perceived to deny one or all three of these emphases, and consequently the issues were polemicized and polarized even more. Is there a way through this theological impasse?

Two Theological Grammars

When people speak two different languages they cannot understand each other. When they use the same words for two different things they cannot connect. Theology is, at one level, a language problem--semantics. Theologies speak different languages, and part of the goal of theological reflection is to try to understand them so that differences and similarities might be clarified. This is what I hope to do in this section.

If we say Moser has legitimate concerns about legalism, and his opponents also have legitimate concerns about antinomianism, how shall we adjudicate between the two? Can these two different groups come to speak the same language?

Similarities: The Common Ground.

While the "Man" and the "Plan" advocates are caught in a polemical exchange, they do appear to have some real formal similarities. These similarities are admitted on both sides though the similarity may be purely formal rather than material. Nevertheless, four formal similarities emerge within the polemical context.

First, both agree that the sole ground of salvation is the atonement of Christ. The only saving power is the blood of Jesus. "What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus!" Grace, then, is the only ground of salvation. This is God's part in the scheme of redemption.

Second, both agree that this grace is appropriated through faith. The salvation that God offers through his grace is conditioned on faith. The human response of faith is the means by which we accept the grace that God offers in his Son. All works must flow from faith or they are without value. All works must be works of faith. Faith, then, as a principle, is the only means of salvation. Faith is both foundational and instrumental in all other responses to God's grace.

Third, both agree that gospel obedience includes submission to Christ through baptism as an expression of faith. Baptism without faith is ineffectual and faith without baptism does not comply with what God requires. Baptism, then, is the particular embodiment of faith which God requires for the remission of sins.

Fourth, both agree that Christians are called to holiness and that those who rebel and reject that call are unbelievers. God has created his people for holiness and good works. Genuine believers will pursue that holiness under the Lordship of Christ and seek to conform to the will of God in every aspect of their lives. When believers rebel or reject God's commands and insist upon their own selfish ways, then their hearts have turned to unbelief. Consequently, they have fallen from grace.

This is the common ground between Moser and his opponents. It is the essence of our theological heritage on the doctrine of grace as we answer the question, Who is a Christian? There is no need for a perfect understanding of the theology of grace, nor of the doctrine of the atonement. Neither is it necessary to have an impeccable and indubitable faith, but simply a faith that trusts in Jesus for salvation and acts on God's promises. Further, it is not necessary to have a perfect conception of baptismal theology. In addition, while no one's sanctification is perfect, the heart that seeks God and obeys him "as best he can" within his covenant of grace will find mercy.[236] However these four points might be applied, their substance is universally present. They evidence a theological unity which binds us together as a church. This has always been our historic position, and, I think, it ought to remain so. It is my hope that both "the Man" and "the Plan" advocates will recognize this common ground with each other.[237]

Essential Difference

Despite this common ground, there is a real difference between Moser and his opponents. It is, in fact, what makes them two different positions. This difference is what the "Man or the Plan" controversy was all about, and it is a significant one. An important question is whether this material difference undermines the formal similarities that exist between the "Man" or the "Plan" advocates.

The essential difference is the theological framework in which the "plan" of salvation is conceived. Whether exegetically appropriate or not, the meaning of "the righteousness of God" in Romans 1:16 illustrates the point.[238] For Moser "the righteousness of God" is God's imputation of righteousness through faith, but for others it is God's law which yields righteousness when it is obeyed. For Moser "the righteousness of God" is a gift of divine righteousness which is given from above, but for others it is a plan which is given from above, but worked from below so that whoever fully complies with the gospel plan is righteous by virtue of and on the basis of his compliance alone. Moser stressed faith in a person who gives us the status of righteousness while others stressed the plan with which one must comply in order to become righteous. For Moser we are righteous by accepting God's gift of righteousness from above, but for others we are righteous by acting righteously or by generating our righteousness from below.

Those who emphasize the plan, then, believe the gospel is God's plan for making us righteous. God has instituted a new plan, the gospel system, "the faith," in the place of the old plan, the Mosaic law. The plan of righteousness under the Old Testament was a system of sacrifices and obedience. The plan of righteousness under the New Testament is the sacrifice of Christ for past sins and obedience. Obedience as a law-keeping system which works righteousness is maintained in both systems, but it is a different law, different requirements, different things to do. The gospel of Christ, the revealed plan of God, is a new set of requirements, a new law.[239]

Justification is not God's gift of righteousness because "this understanding of God's righteousness emphasizes what God has done and not what man should do."[240] God's plan of righteousness is something we must do in order to be righteous. The righteousness, then, is our own which we achieve by compliance with the plan. Our obedience is a righteousness which complies with the demands of God's new law. "God's righteousness," then, means our obedience to God's plan for making us righteous. When we obey the plan, we work righteousness for ourselves. God did his part by providing a perfect plan, and now we must do our part by obeying the plan and becoming righteous. "Our part," then, is to be obedient so that our obedient acts constitute our righteousness before God. "Our part" is a form of inherent, as opposed to, imputed righteousness.[241]

The righteousness by which we are justified, then, is our own. This is clearly affirmed by writers of this perspective. One author wrote, "A simple brief definition of righteousness is, therefore, right-doing; to be righteous is to do right . . . Who is he? He that doeth righteousness. No other is. He that doeth righteousness is righteous."[242] Thus, when you "do" the plan, you are righteous by virtue of God's gracious accounting of your doing. Even though your doing is not sufficient to merit your standing, it is God's plan that if you do "X," he will count "X" as righteous. God has lowered his standard of righteousness so that we can measure up to it. When we obey, then, it is our doing that makes us righteous. Even faith is regarded as a work of righteousness which is an obedient response to God's commands. Faith is a righteous act, and when conjoined with obedience, it is a righteous act which God counts as sufficient to place one in a right relationship with himself. You have measured up to God's standard, and this makes you worthy of justification.[243]

Further, this right relationship with God is maintained by continually doing right. We maintain our standing with God by our righteous behavior. Even if the beginning is God's part in the sense that he gave the plan, our introduction into it and our maintenance of it is our doing alone. Again, hear the same writer:

Thus one in a righteous, or justified state, is simply no longer alienated from God. Because we are expected to maintain the state of non-alienation between us and the Lord there is an extension of the idea of approval in the obedience required. In this sense we work righteousness. (Acts 10:34,35.) This is consistent with the basic meaning of the word since such working is essential to the continuance of the state of acquittal between us and God![244]

Thus, sanctification or practical righteousness is the means by which one's legal status of forgiveness is maintained. While obedient faith in the baptismal act gave us a new start, now we must maintain our justification by our own righteousness.[245]

It is important to understand that in this perspective compliance with God's legitimate demands or standards is not thought of as human righteousness, but as divine righteousness because they are divine standards.[246] We may do them; we may act rightly, and they are our actions. But when we do what God commands, we are "doing righteousness," but not our own. Rather, we are doing God's righteousness because they are his commandments. It is in this context that use of Psalm 119:172 takes on meaning: "All thy commandments are righteous."[247] It is "God's righteousness" that saves only in the sense that it is God's commandments which we obey but it is our "doing" that saves us.

Thus, the righteousness of God is not conceived as a gift which God bestows, but as a plan with which we comply. The righteousness of justification, then, is our own righteousness since we have complied with God's demands. We are justified, therefore, by measuring up to God's standard, and we remain justified only as we continue to measure up to God's standard. God's plan of salvation, therefore, is not simply the death and resurrection of Jesus. Rather, it is the righteousness of our obedient acts in both faith-baptism and our obedience throughout our Christian life. The plan of salvation includes the whole of our Christian life, including ethics and ecclesiology.

This means, of course, that we must act righteously and measure up to God's standard in order to remain justified. This standard of measurement or "the plan" involves both ecclesiological and ethical duties. If we do not measure up to God's standards in ecclesiology or in ethics, then we lose our status of justification even if it is a matter of ignorance or weakness or lack of opportunity. Every sin removes us from the fellowship of God.[248] Thus, even if one, through her own Bible study, is baptized biblically, the moment she worships with the instrument on the next Sunday she is lost. She has failed to live up to God's ecclesiological standard for the worship of the church. The moment anyone has a moral failure, he has failed to live up to God's ethical standard, and is lost at that point unless he knows he had one and confesses it immediately.[249] This introduces a perfectionism into the doctrine of sanctification. We must measure up in every detail of the Christian life to maintain our right-standing with God. To sin in one detail, to break the law in one point, is to lose our righteous standing. In other words, we must be righteous (obey all God's commands) in order to remain righteous in God's sight. The upshot of this is to equate the immature violation of law by a babe in Christ (like unintentionally speeding) with unimmersion.[250] This is a law principle of salvation and no one, in the final analysis, can measure up to it.[251]

This view of grace which I have outlined has several practical implications, which may account for several controversies within twentieth century Churches of Christ.[252] For example, there is the thorny problem of how far grace extends to the believer in Christ. If it is no longer faith that is the essential element, but compliance with the whole law that is equally essential, then assurance is a matter of knowing all our sins, confessing our sins and measuring up to God's standard of righteousness. Assurance does not rest in whether one has a submissive faith in Christ, whether one humbly seeks to obey God as far as he knows and as best he can, but whether one has complied with the plan sufficiently, that is, has he kept the law well. This looks to our own works for assurance rather than to Christ; it rests assurance in our works rather than in Christ. It substitutes a law principle for a faith principle. It looks to how well we have kept the law rather than trusting in the mercy of Christ through submissive faith. Of course, Christians ought to comply with God's law in every respect, but it is because of our failure to do so that we needed grace in the first place. If we substitute compliance for faith, then we have substituted law for grace; we have substituted perfection for submissive trust. Instead, we ought to place faith in Christ at the head, focus our confidence in him, and seek to comply with his will as best we can in every aspect of our lives. Assurance rests in whether we lovingly and trustingly submit to Christ as best we can, and not how well we have measured up to the law.

Conclusion

While there is common ground between the two positions on grace, there is also a clear difference. The difference manifests itself in the nature of our justification where righteousness is something we do instead of something we receive as a gift. Justification based upon one's own righteousness is inherently legalistic; it is the very definition of legalism. If it is this theology of justification which saturates the "Plan" theory, then it is inherently legalistic. This material difference clouds the biblical dimensions of the "Plan" theory. It obscures the biblical foundations which it holds in common with the "Man" theory. Ultimately, if the "Plan" theory is taken to its logical extreme (which it rarely is), it undermines the formal similarities between the two traditions, and reduces to a new legalism.

The difference also manifests itself in the nature of our sanctification where the plan extends into the Christian life so that good works of various kinds are also made conditions of salvation in the same sense that baptism is a condition of salvation. It is in this area that discussions of grace have been so troublesome among us. We have basically agreed on who is a Christian (though the rebaptism controversy muddies the water, excuse the pun), but we have had problems with understanding how grace functions in the Christian's life. In the area of sanctification we have tended to be perfectionists to the point that we depend on works rather than faith, on our perfection rather than the perfection of Christ. We have tended to depend upon sufficiently adhering to the plan, or climbing the ladder, rather than trusting Christ alone for our salvation and seeking to conform to his image. This is an area that needs careful reflection, and what you say about it will reflect the theology of grace to which you are more accustomed.

Recognizing this difference, it is not difficult to see why Moser emphasized the "Man" and Wallace emphasized the "Plan." Both would say that we should preach both. The man and the plan should not be abstracted from each other, but the traditions have a different understanding of the plan's nature. Moser rooted the plan in a faith principle which emphasizes trusting Christ alone for salvation, but Wallace rooted the plan in a law principle which emphasizes the necessity of complete obedience throughout the whole of the Christian's life. While they both agreed on the common ground outlined above, they disagreed about the nature of the plan itself. Consequently, when Moser said, "Preach the Man, not the Plan," he had in mind, "preach the gospel, and not the plan as it is conceived by some, but preach the man and tell them how to respond to the gospel." When Wallace said, "Preach the Man and the Plan," he had in mind preaching the grace of God which provided the plan and obedience to the gospel system as a law. Moser believed that one cannot preach the gospel as a law, and consequently thought Wallace was, at best inconsistent, and at worse undermining the gospel itself.[253]

Conclusion

Moser was Texas born and bred, and preached in the conservative regions of McGary's and Showalter's Firm Foundation. He believed that the preaching he observed assumed legalism, and that this was rooted in a misunderstanding of the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. In the 1920s and early 1930s he tried to correct this misperception through the pages of the Firm Foundation and his book The Way of Salvation. His position was rejected, and he was regarded as a Baptist in sheep's clothing. He was ostracized by his preaching brothers in Texas.

Nevertheless, he found a hearing in the east through the Gospel Advocate. The Gospel Advocate Company published his book, and the Advocate made him the head of a department. He found an ally in G. C. Brewer. The keepers of the Lipscomb-Harding tradition welcomed him. But the Texas wing of the Advocate staff was too influential and Moser was dropped. This, among other things, wounded Moser and contributed to his poor health in the mid-1930s. It also signaled the rise of a strong voice for the Texas tradition east of the Mississippi.

When Moser recovered, he continued his incessant attack on legalistic preaching. He still had his supporters, like Brewer, who promoted his tracts, but he was in a minority west of the Mississippi. He published in the Advocate on occasion. But Moser's influence was minimal (except in the persons of Brewer and others) until the 1950s when his work was a breath of fresh air in a decade of squabbling and fighting. It was a message of grace in a time when the church was struggling to determine which segment of the conservative wing of the restoration movement was the true church. Harding Press published Moser's tract "Christ Versus a Plan." The Gospel Light Publishing Company of Delight, Arkansas republished his The Way of Salvation. Teachers at various colleges used his book The Gist of Romans in classes.

A new generation was growing up in the midst of bickering and fighting, and this generation was exposed to the Lipscomb-Harding tradition of grace through faith. Woodroof refers to this as the "first wave" of grace teaching among Churches of Christ.[254] However, it is far from the "first wave." On the contrary, it was the re-emergence of the Lipscomb-Harding tradition within the mainstream of Churches of Christ. The work of Moser prepared the ground for this major theological shift on the doctrine of grace. However, this view of grace was not new, nor had it been totally absent from Churches of Christ throughout the twentieth century. J. D. Bales, for example, testifies to the sermons on grace he heard from Armstrong, L. C. Sears and others while at Harding College (1933-1937).[255] Moser, Brewer and others simply represented the old Nashville Bible School tradition in the mid-twentieth century which had been displaced in the east by the McGary-Showalter tradition through the influence of Wallace, Whiteside, and Woods. The late 1950s and 1960s saw the re-emergence of that tradition in the person of younger preachers who had been exposed to the Lipscomb-Harding tradition.

The McGary-Showalter Texas tradition, however, could not keep a tight reign on its theological development. There were sympathizers with Moser in Texas as well as in Searcy and Memphis. These sympathizers led a shift toward Moser in Texas just as the Lipscomb-Harding tradition was growing weak in the east. One indication of this movement was G. C. Brewer's speech at the ACC Lectures in 1952.[256] Hughes notes that J. D. Thomas, who directed the ACU lectures from 1952 to 1969, believes that Brewer's lecture was a "pivotal turning point for Churches of Christ."[257] It shifted a part of the Texas tradition toward the Lipscomb-Harding (and Moser) view of grace and bore fruit at ACC through the teaching of R. C. Bell and J. D. Thomas.[258] This Texas shift was encouraged by Moser himself as he taught for eight years at Lubbock Christian College, spoke on their lectureships,[259] and wrote four books in "The Living Word Series" for an Austin publishing house.[260] This shift now pervades Texas even though the Firm Foundation is still the organ of the McGary-Tant-Showalter tradition.

Leonard Allen, then, is essentially correct when notes that "the efforts of Moser, Brewer and these others stand directly behind some of the theological shifts occurring among contemporary Churches of Christ."[261] The Lipscomb-Harding tradition has taken root west of the Mississippi, and is returning to its origins east of the Mississippi.

Moser's story is but a single perspective on the history of the Churches of Christ from the 1920s to the 1960s. Yet, his story is significant because he represents the rise of a doctrine of grace in Texas that was imported from Nashville, but was subsequently muddied there. A theological shift occurred, and it was fundamentally a shift that went east and west. In the 1930s, Texas conservatism spread from Austin to Nashville, and in the 1950s and 60s the Lipscomb-Harding tradition of grace re-emerged west of the Mississippi.[262] Moser's role in importing and prompoting the Lipscomb-Harding tradition west of the Mississippi was foundational, and his influence is significant in its revival east of the Mississippi.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MOSER'S WRITINGS

Arranged in Chronological Order by Category

BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS

The Way of Salvation. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1932.

"Are We Preaching The Gospel?" Ardome, OK: Author, 1937.

"Christ Versus a 'Plan'." Searcy, Ark: Harding College Bookstore, 1952.

Gist of Romans. Oklahoma City, OK: Author, 1957.

Gist of Romans. 2nd ed. Oklahoma City, OK: Author, 1958.

Attributes of God, Living Word Series, no. 204. Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Co., 1964.

Redemption in Acts and Letters, Living Word Series, no. 225. Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Co., 1964.

Galatians, Living Word Series, no. 229. Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Co., 1965.

"Preaching the Condition as Response to the the Atonement." In The Unfinished Restoration: Eighth Annual Lectureship, Lubbock Christian College. Lubbock, TX: Lubbock Christian College, 1965. Pages 67-72.

"Faith Principle." In Power for Today's Living: Ninth Annual Lectureship, Lubbock Christian College. Lubbock, TX: Lubbock Christian College, 1966. Pages 130-140.

"How to Teach Hebrews." In The Church in the Twenty-First Century: Tenth Annual Lectureship, Lubbock Christian College. Lubbock, TX: Lubbock Christian College, 1966. Pages 167-174.

Studies in Hebrews, Living Word Series, no. 235. Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Co., 1972.

"The Meaning of Obedience to Christ." Unpublished manuscript, n.d.

"Studies in Romans." Unpublished Notebook, n.d.

GOSPEL ADVOCATE

"Lukewarm Child of God." GA 62 (9 December 1920): 1187-8.

"Shipwreck Concerning the Faith." GA 64 (13 April 1922): 351-2.

"`Child of God,' `Christian'--Is There a Difference?" GA 64 (21 September 1922): 903.

"Disarmanent of the Nations." GA 64 (14 December 14 1922): 1188.

"The Other Side of the Question." GA 67 (30 July 1925): 722.

"Sources of the Inspiration of the Early Church." GA 67 (10 September 1925): 872.

"The Earnest of the Spirit." GA 68 (7 January 1926): 7.

"Nearness of God." GA 69 (11 August 1927): 749.

"Thoughts on Hebrews." GA 74 (25 February 1932): 235.

"Thoughts on Hebrews. No. 2." GA 74 (7 April 1932): 428-9.

"Thoughts on Hebrews. No. 3." GA 74 (26 May 1932): 638-9.

"Thoughts on Hebrews. The Sources of Unbelief." GA 74 (18 August 1932): 918.

"Preaching Jesus." GA 74 (1 December 1932): 1283.

"Nehemiah 8:8." GA 75 (5 January 1933): 18.[263]

"John 4:24." GA 75 (12 January 1933): 42.

"Mark 1:4." GA 75 (19 January 1933): 66.

"Faithfulness in God's House." GA 75 (9 February 1933): 139.

"John 6:53,54." GA 75 (2 March 1933): 210.

"First Corinthians 11:27." GA 75 (9 March 1933): 234.

"Romans 14:23." GA 75 (23 March 1933): 282.

"Lessons from Our Names." GA 75 (30 March 1933): 305.

"Reply." GA 75 (6 April 1933): 330-1.

"On Making an Honest Investigation of the Scriptures."GA 75 (13 April 1933): 353.

"First John 3:9." GA 75 (20 April 1933): 377.[264]

"Forced Interpretations." GA 75 (15 June 15 1933): 559.

"The New Covenant--Is It Now in Force?" GA 75 (20 July 1933): 679, 682.[265]

"The Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity." GA 75 (31 August 1933): 823.

"The Significance of the Kingship of Jesus." GA 75 (19 October 1933): 986.

"Colossians 3:17." GA 75 (26 October 1933): 1010.

"The Naked Gospel." GA 79 (18 November 1937): 1087, 1095.

"What is the Kingdom of God?" GA 81 (13 April 1939): 354.

"The Doctrines of the Cross." GA 82 (29 Feburary 1940): 205.

"The Doctrines of the Cross." GA 82 (14 March 1940): 246.

"The Doctrines of the Cross." GA 82 (28 March 1940): 301.

"The Doctrines of the Cross." GA 82 (11 April 1940): 344, 352.

"The Doctrines of the Cross." GA 82 (25 April 1940): 391.

"The Doctrines of the Cross." GA 82 (16 May 1940): 463, 467.

"The Doctrines of the Cross." GA 82 (27 June 1940): 606, 615.

"Masterbuilder." GA 82 (26 December 1940): 1239.

"Way of Holiness." GA 83 (30 January 1941): 107.

"Spiritual Realities." GA 83 (7 August 1941): 754.

"How was Law Abolished." GA 83 (14 August 1941): 782.

"Faith in a Sin Offering." GA 84 (25 June 1942): 609.

"The Principle of Adaptation." GA 84 (6 August 1942): 746, 754.

"Faith in a Sin Offering." GA 84 (13 August 1942): 775.

"What is the Value of Faith." GA 84 (20 August 1942): 798.

"Glory of Grace." GA 85 (4 March 1943): 198.

"No Distinctions in Christ." GA 85 (12 August 1943): 714.

"The Sinner's Need." GA 86 (28 September 1944): 639.

"What Jesus Said and What He did." GA 88 (31 October 1946): 1019.

"Is There an Analogy with Baptism in Naaman's Dipping?" GA 88 (5 December 1946): 1143.

"Thoughts on Romans 4." GA 89 (30 January 1947): 92-3.

"Logical Relations." GA 89 (3 April 1947): 252-3.

"Reply to Brother Crouch." GA 89 (3 July 1947): 462-3.

"Hope." GA 89 (24 July 1947): 541.

"My Final Reply to Brother Crouch." GA 89 (9 October 1947): 305.

"The Abrogation of the Law." GA 89 (16 October 1947): 829.

"Christian Ethics." GA 90 (3 January 1948): 3.

"'The Essence of the Gospel According to Paul'--Reviewed." GA 90 (4 November 1948): 1065, 1069.

"'The Essence of the Gospel According to Paul'--Reviewed." GA 90 (18 November 1948): 1112-3.

"'The Essence of the Gospel According to Paul'--Reviewed." GA 90 (2 December 1948): 1158-9.

"`The Baptistry Is Filled and the Water is Warm'." GA 93 (5 July 1951): 423.

"The Issue of the Gospel Invitation." GA 98 (29 March 1956): 302-3.

FIRM FOUNDATION

"Worship." FF 37 (28 September 1920): 3.

"Medleys." FF 37 (19 October 1920): 2-3.

"What Kind of Church did this Man Establish?" FF 38 (29 June 1921): 3.

"Spiritual Wickedness and the Work of the Church." FF 38 (15 November 1921): 2-3.

"Disarmament of the Nations." FF 38 (15 December 1921): 3.

"Life and Death." FF 39 (28 March 1922): 2-3.

"Strong in the Faith." FF 39 (30 May 1922): 2-3.

"Mission of the Church." FF 39 (11 July 1922): 2.

"Must Christianity Be Changed?" FF 40 (2 January 1923): 3.

"Christ Conquers Through Love." FF 40 (27 March 1923): 3.

"Fools." FF 40 (1 May 1923): 3.

"How Faith Saves." FF 40 (17 July 1923): 3.

"The Righteousness of the Law Versus the Righteousness of Grace." FF 42 (6 January 1925): 2-3.

"Eight Ways of Being Saved." FF 42 (17 Feburary 1925): 2-3.

"What of the Church." FF 42 (12 May 1925): 3.

"Brother Kidwell's Position Reviewed." FF 42 (16 June 1925): 2-3.

"Final Criticism of Brother Kidwell's Position." FF 42 (8 September 1925): 3.

"How Doth David Call Him Lord?" FF 43 (2 Feburary 1926): 3-4.

"The Relation of Baptism to Faith and Repentance." FF 43 (9 March 1926): 3.

"Christ our Substitute." FF 43 (8 June 1926): 2-3.

"Disfellowshipping One Another." FF 43 (29 June 1926): 2.

"Where is the Value of Faith?" FF 43 (11 September 1926): 2-3.

"Where is the Value of Faith? No. 2." FF 43 (28 September 1926): 2.

"Where is the Value of Faith? No. 3." FF 43 (12 October 1926): 2.[266]

"Where is the Value of Faith? No. 4." FF 43 (9 November 1926): 2-3.

"Neglecting the Worship." FF 44 (22 March 1927): 3.

"The Church as a Candlestick." FF 44 (10 May 1927): 3.

"True Success." FF 45 (22 May 1928): 5.

"The Principle of Salvation--What is It? How is It Determined?" FF 46 (22 January 1929): 11.

"The Spirit of Adoption." FF 46 (8 October 1929): 3.

"Brother Colley Seeks Information." FF 47 (11 March 1930): 3.

"Text Comment." FF 47 (8 April 1930): 2-3.

"How Many Conditions of Salvation?" FF 47 (22 April 1930): 3.

"Reply to Brother Colley." FF 47 (6 May 1930): 3.

"Saving Faith--What Does It Include?" FF 47 (9 September 1930): 5.

"Thoughts on Romans--Introductory (The Readers)." FF 4 47 (23 December 1930): 5.

"Thoughts on Romans--Introductory (The Gospel)," FF 48 (6 January 1931): 3.

"Are Children Gospel Subjects?" FF 49 (12 April 1932): 3.

"Can the Gospel Be Obeyed?" FF 51 (6 Feburary 1934): 2.[267]

"Reply to Brother Showalter." FF 51 (3 April 1934): 8.

-----------------------

[1]This article is a condensation of my presentation for the W. B. West, Jr. Lectures for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship at Harding University Graduate School of Religion on October 5, 1993.

[2] [3]Reuel Lemmons, "The Shifting Current," Firm Foundation 79 (17 April 1962): 242.

[4]Ibid.

[5]Ibid.

[6]Towards the end of his life Lemmons attitude changed on this issue. See, for example, "Our Theology," Firm Foundation 99 (6 July 1982): 418 where he comments on the negativism of "our theology": "Another example is our attitude toward grace and forgiveness. Our historical background has produced a theology of uncertainty on the one hand and a too simple three-step plan on the other. The cardinal doctrines of Scripture demand that we have a better theology. Substitutionary atonement and even imputed righteousness need to be more completely defined. Salvation by faith can stand more study. Our polemic approach to these and other problems often do not do credit to our cause."

[7]L. W. Mayo, "Are you a Legalist?", Firm Foundation 79 (17 April 1962): 247.

[8] [9]Glenn Wallace, "The Man or the Plan," Firm Foundation 79 (22 May 1962): 326.

[10]Ibid.

[11]Firm Foundation 79 (3 July 1962). This issue contained fourteen articles on the "Man or the Plan" controversy.

[12]Waymon Miller, "What is Legalism?," Firm Foundation 79 (22 May 1962): 327. Miller's article was written in response to both Lemmons, "Shifting Current," and Mayo, "Are We Legalists?". Lemmons' "Faith in a Person: Not Faith in a Plan," Firm Foundation 79 (22 May 1962): 322 was a response to Miller, and Miller replied in "Clarifying the Issue," Firm Foundation 79 (12 June 1962): 375, 383. Due to the immense interest in the topic, Lemmons addressed it again, "The Man and the Plan Again," Firm Foundation 79 (12 June 1962): 370, and devoted the July 3, 1962 issue of the paper to the topic.

[13]Letter to K. C. Moser, Oklahoma City from Waymon Miller, Fort Worth, Texas, dated June 18, 1962. I obtained a copy of this letter from Mrs. Francis Winkles of Abilene, TX, the daughter of K. C. Moser.

[14]See Gospel Preachers Who Blazed the Trail, ed. by C. R. Nichol (Austin: Firm Foundation Publishing House, reprint of 1911 edition, n.d.), s.v. J. S. Moser.

[15]Interview with Francis Winkles, August 27, 1993.

[16]M. Norvel Young, A History of Colleges Established and Controlled by Members of the Churches of Christ (Kansas City: Old Paths Book Club, 1949), 77, n. 196. According to F. W. Mattox, interview on August 2, 1993, he was self-taught in Greek and Hebrew. His rise to a faculty position and his self-education are indicative of his intellecutal abilities.

[17]The churches he served were: Normangee, TX (1919-20), Longview, TX (1920-21), Wewoka, OK (1921-23), Tenth and Frances in Oklahoma City, OK (1923-26), Frederick, OK (1926-33), Ardmore, OK (1935-37), Morton, TX (1937-40), 12th and Drexel in Oklahoma City, OK (1940-47; 1950-64), Enid, OK (1947-50). The years 1933-35 were a time of severe illness for Moser. He contracted ulcerative colitis, and was on the verge of death in 1935. After a trip to the Mayo Clinic and restful time on the farm, he was able to return to full-time work. Cf. C. Leonard Allen, Distant Voices: Discovering a Forgotten Past for a Changing Church (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1993), 168-169. From 1937-40, Moser worked part-time for the church in Morton while he supervised his farm and lived in Lubbock. That was a time of recuperation for Moser.

[18]This biographical information is pieced together from the first two volumes of Preachers of Today, edited by B. B. Baxter and M. Norvel Young (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1952, 1959), H. Leo Boles, "K. C. Moser," Gospel Advocate 84 (6 August 1942): 746, and personal interviews with relatives and friends of K. C. Moser. See also his obituaries in Gospel Advocate 118 (11 March 1976): 175 and Firm Foundation 93 (23 March 1976): 190.

[19]Interview with Jim Massey of Melbourne, FL on July 6, 1993, who taught with Moser at Lubbock.

[20]Richard T. Hughes, "Are Restorationists Evangelicals?" in Varieties of American Evangelicalism, edited by Donald Dayton and Robert K. Johnston (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, 1990), 125.

[21]C. Leonard Allen, The Cruciform Church: Becoming a Cross-Shaped People in a Secular World (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1990), 123.

[22]Mike Casey, "Preaching in the Worldly Church: Where Have We Come From? Where Are We Going?," Leaven 1.3 (1990): 18.

[23]James S. Woodroof, The Church in Transition (Searcy, AK: The Bible House, Inc., 1990), 19.

[24]Allen, Distant Voices, 162-170.

[25]Ibid., 169.

[26]His first article was "Worship," Firm Foundation 37 (28 September 1920): 3. He published thirty articles in the Firm Foundation in the 1920s.

[27]He published his first article "Lukewarm Child of God," Gospel Advocate 62 (9 December 1920): 1187-8. He published only seven articles in the Gospel Advocate in the 1920s.

[28]He published only eight articles in the Advocate from 1920 to 1932.

[29]He published thirty-eight articles in the Firm Foundation from 1920-1932.

[30]Moser, "Worship," 3.

[31]Moser, "Life and Death," Firm Foundation 39 (28 March 1922): 2-3.

[32]Moser, "Spiritual Wickedness and the Work of the Church," Firm Foundation 38 (15 November 1921): 2-3. "Most modern churches have rejected the principle that demands Bible authority for their practice. . . Most of the modern churches have given themselves over to idolatry, leaving the Church of Christ sadly in the minority, persecuted and scorned, to hold fast the form of sound words and to preserve the standard of morality inviolate. . . The modern church baby is just now learning to crawl."

[33]Moser, "Brother Kidwell's Position Reviewed," Firm Foundation 42 (16 June 1925): 2-3; "Final Criticism of Brother Kidwell's Position," Firm Foundation 42 (8 September 1925): 3; "The Spirit of Adoption," Firm Foundation 46 (8 October 1929): 3; "Brother Colley Seeks Information," Firm Foundation 47 (10 March 1930): 3; and "Reply to Brother Colley," Firm Foundation 47 (6 May 1930): 3. He also published "The Earnest of the Spirit," Gospel Advocate 66 (7 January 1926): 7.

[34]Moser, "Mission of the Church," Firm Foundation 39 (30 May 1922): 2-3, and "What of the Church," Firm Foundation 42 (12 May 1925): 3. In "Strong in the Faith," Firm Foundation 39 (30 May 1922): 2-3, he condemns those who "enthusiastically" watch the sects skinned, proclaim baptism for the remission of sins and oppose instrumental music, but who have not "been to worship in six months." Rephrasing James, he concludes: "Ye see, then brethren, how that by works a man is 'strong in the faith,' and not only by skinning the 'sects' on the street corners."

[35]This is in contrast to Hughes who maintains that in the "late 1920s and early 1930s" Moser had a change of mind on the doctrine of justification ("Are Restorationists Evangelicals?," 124). Hughes may be alluding to Moser's admitted change on the way in which he preached Christ. Cf. Moser, "Christ Versus a 'Plan'" (Searcy, AR: Harding Press, 1952), 1. However, based upon his early contributions to the Firm Foundation, this must have occurred early in the 1920s or while he was at Thorp Springs Christian College. Moser gives no specifics as to the exact date of this change.

[36]Moser, "Mission," 2.

[37]Moser, "How Faith Saves," Firm Foundation 40 (17 July 1923): 3.

[38]Moser, "The Righteousness of the Law Versus the Righteousness of Grace," Firm Foundation 42 (6 January 1925): 2-3.

[39]Moser, "Eight Ways of Being Saved," Firm Foundation 42 (17 February 1925): 2-3.

[40]Moser, "The Relation of Baptism to Faith and Repentance," Firm Foundation 43 (9 March 1926): 3; "Christ our Substitute," Firm Foundation 43 (8 June 1926): 2-3; "Where is the Value of Faith?," Firm Foundation 43 (14 September 1926): 2-3; "Where is the Value of Faith? No. 2," Firm Foundation 43 (28 September 1926): 2; "Where is the Value of Faith? No. 3," Firm Foundation 43 (12 October 1926): 2; and "Where is the Value of Faith? No. 4," Firm Foundation 43 (9 November 1926): 2-3.

[41]Moser, "Relation of Baptism,"

3.

[42]Moser, "Value of Faith? No. 4,"

3.

[43]Other important articles on this subject from this early period are: "The Principle of Salvation--What Is It? How Is It Determined?," Firm Foundation 46 (22 January 1929): 11; "How Many Conditions of Salvation?," Firm Foundation 47 (22 April 1930): 4; "Saving Faith--What Does It Include?," Firm Foundation 47 (9 September 1930): 4; and "Thoughts on Romans--Introductory (The Gospel)," Firm Foundation 48 (6 January 1931): 1.

[44]Moser, "Introductory (The Gospel)," 3.

[45]Moser, "How Many Conditions of Salvation?", Firm Foundation 47 (22 April 1930): 4.

[46]Moser, "Saving Faith--What Does It Include?," Firm Foundation 47 (6 May 1930): 3.

[47]Moser, "Conditions," 4.

[48]Moser, "Saving Faith," 4.

[49]Ibid.

[50]Moser, "Christ Our Substitute," 2: "The atonement is the beginning point of Christianity. . . it is being so vigorously denied today. . . This is the same old doctrine of legalism."

[51]F. W. Mattox remembers that Moser said that he started out as a legalistic preacher who used sermon outline books for his fodder. However, during a severe illness which he believed to be fatal Moser began to read the Bible from a "fresh point of view" and learned that he had not been preaching the gospel. This is based on an interview with F. W. Mattox, August 2, 1993.

[52]Moser, The Way of Salvation (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1932). It was reprinted in 1957 by the Gospel Light Publishing Company of Delight, Arkansas.

[53]I have failed to find a review article of it (except Wallace's and Brewer's mentioned in the text), and I did not find any advertisements for it in contemporary papers. The only exception to this is a single paragraph of endorsement by R. H. Boll, "Obliterating Distinctions," Word and Work 26 (January 1933): 27. He believed the Moser's book taught "some much needed truth."

[54]Foy E. Wallace, Jr., "'The Way of Salvation'," Gospel Advocate 74 (21 April 1932): 494.

[55]Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Present Truth (Fort Worth: Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Publications, 1977), 1036.

[56]G. C. Brewer, "Read this Book," Gospel Advocate 75 (11 May 1933): 434.

[57]Wallace, This Present Truth, 1036. G. H. P. Showalter records an incident where Ben Bogard asked him: "What are you folks going to do with Moser?" Cf. "The 'Faith Alone' Idea," Firm Foundation 51 (3 April 1934): 4.

[58]Brewer, "Read," 434.

[59]On the importance of Brewer and Wallace among Churches of Christ in the 1930s, see Robert E. Hooper, A Distinct People: A History of the Churches of Christ in the 20th Century (West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing Co., 1993), 131-64.

[60]Moser, "Can the Gospel Be Obeyed?," 51 Firm Foundation (6 February 1934): 2; G. H. P. Showalter, "Obedience and Salvation," Firm Foundation 51 (13 February 1934): 5. Moser ("Reply to Brother Showalter," 8) and Showalter ("'Faith Alone'," 4) exchanged replies in the Firm Foundation 51 (3 April 1934).

[61]Moser, "Are Children Gospel Subjects?," Firm Foundation 49 (12 April 1932): 3 was published the week before Wallace's publication notice, and it is the last article to appear by Moser in the Firm Foundation except the two noted above.

[62]Moser had apparently planned a series on Romans in the Firm Foundation, but he was only able to publish two articles. Cf. "Thoughts on Romans--Introductory (The Readers)," Firm Foundation 47 (23 December 1930): 5, and "Thoughts on Romans--Introductory (The Gospel)," Firm Foundation 48 (6 January 1931): 3. It is possible that Moser himself discontinued the series in order to write his book. It is also possible that he wrote the book partly because he could not fully express himself in the Firm Foundation. I have been unable to determine which, if either, possibility is the case.

[63]Allen, Distant Voices, 163.

[64]Moser, The Way of Salvation, 34.

[65]Ibid., 36.

[66]Ibid., 38.

[67]Ibid., 98.

[68]Cf. Moser, "Conditions," 4 and "Saving Faith," 4.

[69]Moser, Way of Salvation, 57.

[70]See the chart titled "The Plan" at the end of the paper.

[71]Ibid., 106.

[72]Ibid., 107-11.

[73]Ibid., 112-24. Brewer, "Read," 434, himself notes that this was Moser's "best work."

[74]Moser, Way of Salvation, 115.

[75]Ibid., 116.

[76]Ibid., 118.

[77]Ibid., 119.

[78]Ibid., 122.

[79]Ibid., 122-23.

[80]Ibid.

[81]Moser, "Preaching Jesus," Gospel Advocate 74 (1 December 1932): 1283.

[82]Moser did not originate this concern or language. For example, J. Edward Boyd, "Preaching the Gospel," Word and Work 13 (November 1920): 337, wrote: "Not a 'plan of redemption,' a 'scheme of salvation,' 'steps of induction into the kingdom,' etc.; not any of these nor all of them, although, alas! such has been the emphasis so often placed upon them that the idea seems not uncommon that they constitute the gospel. Now these are by no means to be ignored or treated with indifference; but primarily and fundamentally the gospel is a message about a person, 'concerning His Son. . . Jesus Christ our Lord'. (Rom. 1:1-4)." This contrasting language is also present in The Way of Salvation, 107-08.

[83]His first article was "Nehemiah 8:8," Gospel Advocate 75 (5 January 1933): 18. He published thirteen articles from January 5 to July 20 as the head of this department.

[84]R. L. Whiteside, "Preach--What?," Gospel Advocate 74 (29 December 1932): 1374.

[85]Moser, "The Issue of the Gospel Invitation," Gospel Advocate 98 (26 March 1956): 302. Moser writes: "The word gospel is not synonymous with truth, or the word of God. Gospel is both truth and the word of God, but so are many other things which are not gospel or glad tidings. . . The 'gospel of Christ' is glad tidings of salvation through Christ crucified, buried, raised for our salvation."

[86]Moser, "The Significance of the Kingship of Jesus," Gospel Advocate 75 (19 October 1933): 986 provides a thinly veiled reply to Whiteside: "By this I mean that the power which constitutes him king is the power by which he saves man; his kingly authority relates directly and primarily to his work of salvation. . . He is king not merely to rule over man, but first to save him."

[87]Wallace, The Present Truth, 1036.

[88]Ibid.

[89]For example, R. L. Whiteside, "Lessons on the Romans Letter," Gospel Advocate 75 (15 June 1933): 558; (6 July 1933): 630; and (13 July 1933): 654. "These were some things that I thought needed to be said at this particular time" (p. 558). This series was later published as A New Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Saints at Rome (Denton, TX: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), 91-93, 98. Whiteside's opposition to Moser's view of grace was not a reactionary one. He had long held the position which he outlined against Moser. Cf. Whiteside, "A Righteousness from God," Gospel Herald 1 (19 December 1912): 1.

[90]Moser, "On Making an Honest Investigation of the Scriptures," Gospel Advocate 75 (13 April 1933): 353.

[91]Ibid.

[92]I say this in the light of the personal and theological differences which existed between Wallace and Brewer. The premillenial controversy, which Brewer believed should not be made a test of fellowship, but which Wallace did, was raging at the time. R. H. Boll's endorsement of Moser's book did not help matters. See William Woodson, Standing for Their Faith: A History of Churches of Christ in Tennessee, 1900-1950 (Henderson, TN: J & W Publications, 1979), 123-127; and Hooper, Distinct People, 142-6.

[93]Moser, "The Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity," Gospel Advocate 74 (31 August 1933): 823; "Kingship of Jesus," 986; and "Colossians 3:17," Gospel Advocate 74 (26 October 1933): 1010.

[94]Moser, "The Naked Gospel," Gospel Advocate 79 (18 November 1937): 1087, 1095. He did not publish another article till "What is the Kingdom of God?," Gospel Advocate 81 (13 April 1939): 354.

[95]Allen, Distant Voices, 168.

[96]Hughes, "Are Restorationists Evangelicals?," 125. Hughes cites an interview with Mrs. K. C. Moser. It was her understanding that Moser was banned from participating on the Abilene Lectures for forty years. J. D. Thomas, however, was not aware of any such ban (interview with Thomas, August 2, 1993).

[97]Moser, "Are We Preaching the Gospel?" (Ardmore, OK: Privately Published, 1937). Charles M. Neal, "'Are We Preaching the Gospel?'," Word and Work 31 (July 1937): 138 endorsed the tract and wished "for it a wide reading."

[98]Moser, "Preaching," 2.

[99]Ibid., 5

.

[100]Ibid.

[101]Ibid., 6.

[102]Ibid.

[103]Ibid., 7.

[104]Ibid., 8.

[105]Recently, Bill Love conducted a similar historical project by surveying sermon books within the Restoration Movement, The Core Gospel: On Restoring the Crux of the Matter (Abilene: ACU Press, 1992). While much of the material is useful and he does give us a broad glimpse into the character of preaching among restorationists, there are some significant methodological problems with the book which render its conclusions suspect. See my review in Restoration Quarterly 35.2 (1993): 111-3.

[106]Moser, "Are We Preaching," 8.

[107]Ibid., 9-12.

[108]Ibid., 13.

[109]Ibid., 17-21.

[110]Ibid., 19-20.

[111]This is one of Moser's examples, Ibid., 8.

[112]Ibid., 21.

[113]Ibid., 14.

[114]Ibid., 14.

[115]Ibid., 30.

[116]Ibid., 30.

[117]Ibid., 32.

[118]G. C. Brewer, "'Are We Preaching the Gospel?'," Gospel Advocate 79 (26 August 1937): 798.

[119]Moser, "The Doctrines of the Cross," Gospel Advocate 82 (29 February 1940): 205; (14 March 1940): 246; (28 March 1940): 301; (11 April 1940): 344, 352; (25 April 1940): 391; (16 May 1940): 463, 467; and (27 June 1940): 606, 615.

[120]"Doctrines of the Cross," 205.

[121]Ibid.

[122]Ibid., 301.

[123]Ibid.

[124]Ibid., 391.

[125]Ibid., 467. Evertt Huffard of Harding University Graduate School of Religion, one of Moser's former students, told me that one of Moser's favorite quips was "Not a mite of merit in a million acts of men."

[126]Moser, "The 'Power of God' of Rom. 1:16," Gospel Advocate 90 (23 September 1948): 921, 924; "'The Essence of Christianity, According to Paul'--Reviewed," Gospel Advocate 90 (4 November 1948): 1065, 1069; (18 November 1948): 1112-3; and (2 December 1948): 1158-9.

[127]I have not found any notice of its existence among contemporary papers.

[128]Moser, "Christ," 1.

[129]A. G. Hobbs, Jr., "Give the Plan, Brother," Gospel Advocate 90 (23 September 1948): 924.

[130]Ibid.

[131]Moser, "Christ," 1.

[132]Ibid.

[133]Ibid., 4.

[134]Ibid., 8.

[135]Ibid., 9.

[136]Ibid., 9.

[137]Ibid., 10.

[138]Ibid., 11.

[139]Ibid., 16.

[140]Ibid., 16.

[141]G. C. Brewer, A Story of Toil and Tears of Love and Laughter: Being the Autobiography of G. C. Brewer, 1884-1956 (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publications, 1957), 91-101. Part of this appeared as "Confession and the Plan of Salvation," Gospel Advocate 87 (26 April 1945): 233.

[142]Autobiography, 91.

[143]Ibid., 92.

[144]Ibid., 92-3.

[145]Ibid., 93.

[146]According to Mrs. Fran Winkles of Abilene, TX, the daughter of K. C. Moser, Moser inscribed a note in the back of his copy of the Autobiography which recalls a meeting between Brewer and Moser in 1939. The note says that they discussed the idea of a "plan of salvation" and that Brewer saw his point. Brewer agreed never to use the phrase again in reference to the steps of salvation.

[147]Brewer, Autobiography, 102-106.

[148]I have discovered only one article between 1952 and 1957. Cf. "The Issue of the Gospel Invitation," Gospel Advocate 98 (29 March 1956): 302-3. This theme appears in The Gist of Romans 2nd ed. (Oklahoma City, OK: Privately Published, 1958), xvii-xix.

[149]Moser, The Gist of Romans, 2nd edition (Oklahoma City, OK: Privately Published, 1958).

[150]Ibid., iii.

[151]Ibid.

[152]Ibid., iv.

[153]Ibid., viii.

[154]Ibid., ix.

[155]Ibid., ix.

[156]Ibid., xvii.

[157]Ibid., xviii.

[158]See his nine article series "Grace and Law: Legalism and Liberalism," Gospel Advocate 97 (17 March 1955): 205-6; (31 March 1955): 250-1; (14 April 1955): 284-5; (21 April 1955): 308-10; (28 April 1955): 325-6; (16 June 1955): 493-5; (23 June 1955): 510-2; (21 July 1955): 632-3; and (4 August 1955): 673-5.

[159]Brewer, Autobiography, 151.

[160]See the chart on "The Man" which schematizes the contrasting approach to theology. The focus of our preaching and theology must be Christ who saves rather than the plan we follow. As we seek Christ, we seek his will--to trust him, to obey him. But the "man theory" does not rest in achieving righteousness through the plan, but receiving the cleansing blood of Christ by entering the body of Christ. It is not oriented toward doing, compliance or perfection, but toward being, transformation or submissive trust.

[161]Roy Key, "'The Righteousness of God'," Gospel Advocate 88 (24 January 1946): 74-75, 78-79.

[162]Under a section entitled "Let Us Beware of the Mistakes of the Jews," Key specifically reflected the language of Moser. For example, in The Way of Salvation, 114, Moser uses the heading "The Fundamental Mistake of the Jews." In a telephone conversation on August 18, 1993, Roy Key recalled that he was particularly influenced by S. H. Hall and K. C. Moser on the doctrine of grace though he attributes the major thrust of his thinking to the apostle Paul. In an undated letter to Brewer in 1955, which Key shared with me, he acknowledged his debt to Lipscomb, Brewer and Grubbs and added that he was indebted to Moser for his view of salvation by grace; letter to John Mark Hicks of Memphis, TN from Roy Key of Rogers, AR, dated August 16, 1993. The S. H. Hall influence is interesting, and, like Moser, was through his writing, particularly Studies in Scripture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1931), 99-107, 122-130. Hall graduated from the Nashville Bible School in 1906 and while there he experienced a "second conversion" under the influence of Lipscomb, Harding and Larimore as he was was exposed to a tradition different from the Firm Foundation. See Hall, Sixty-Five Years in the Pulpit, or Compound Interest in Religion (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1959), 13-16. This is yet another confirmation of the historical interpretation offered in the text.

[163]Key, 78.

[164]Ibid.

[165]Ibid.

[166]Brewer, "'The Righteousness of God," Gospel Advocate 88 (7 March 1946): 224.

[167]Ibid., 224.

[168]Ibid.

[169]Brewer, "Grace and Salvation," in Abilene Christian College Bible Lectureship (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing Co., 1952), esp. 112-4. This speech also appeared in the Advocate, "Grace and Salvation," Gospel Advocate 96 (30 December 1954): 1029-31 and 97 (17 February 1955), 124-5.

[170]Ibid., 115.

[171]Ibid., 116.

[172]Brewer, "Righteousness," 224.

[173]Ibid., 224. Brewer also calls attention to T. W. Caskey and James A. Harding in his 1952 ACC lecture, "Grace and Salvation," 112-4 and Advocate, 1029-30.

[174]Brewer, "Grace and Salvation," ACC, 103.

[175]Ibid., 102.

[176]I am dependent here upon the forthcoming book by Richard T. Hughes, The Churches of Christ to be published by Greenwood Press.

[177]David Lipscomb, "God's Righteousness Saves," Gospel Advocate 38 (29 October 1896): 692. See also Lipscomb, "Righteousness Can Come Only Through Christ," Gospel Advocate 32 (8 October 1890): 648.

[178]Lipscomb, "Righteousness Saves," 692. This quotation is also found in David Lipscomb, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles, 4, edited, with additional notes, by J. W. Shepherd (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1957), 205-06.

[179]James A. Harding, "By Grace Through Faith," The Way 1 (23 February 1899): 18. For biographical information and some of the history of the Nashville Bible School, Potter Bible College and The Way, see L. C. Sears, The Eyes of Jehovah: The Life and Faith of James Alexander Harding (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1970).

[180]Harding, "Grace," 19. Cf. p. 18: "The writer of this believes that the justified are justified by grace through faith apart from works of law; that they are not in God's sight, justified by deeds of law--of any law, ancient, or modern, human or divine; that this is a 'wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort'."

[181]James A. Harding, "Questions and Answers," The Way 4 (17 July 1902): 122. In the same article he stated that he could "extend no hope" to the unimmersed.

[182]For biographical information, see L. C. Sears, For Freedom: The Biography of John Nelson Armstrong (Austin: Sweet Publishing Co., 1969).

[183]J. N. Armstrong, "Who Then Can Be Saved?," The Way 3 (15 August 1901): 155.

[184]Ibid., 156.

[185]J. N. Armstrong, "The Blood of Jesus," The Way 1 (1 August 1900): 123. See also his "The Faith that Saves," Gospel Herald 1 (25 September 1913): 2-3.

[186]Interview with F. W. Mattox, August 2, 1993.

[187]Hughes, Churches of Christ, forthcoming.

[188]R. H. Boll, "Word and Work," Gospel Advocate 56 (14 March 1914): 513. During his editorship of Word and Work, Boll authored many articles on grace. See, in particular, "Grace and Works," Word and Work 25 (August 1932): 196-8; and "God's Part and Man's Part," Word and Work 25 (November 1932): 266-7. He also published a series on Romans in 1937-38 which was reprinted in 1952-53. It is interesting that these publication dates coincide with Moser's own pamphlets in 1937 and 1952.

[189]Ibid., 514.

[190]Ibid.

[191]R. H. Boll, "Babes & Hypocrites," The Way 3 (25 April 1901): 26.

[192]Young, History, 75, 113, 118, and Sears, For Freedom, 75ff, 110ff.

[193]Hughes, "Are Restorationists Evangelicals?," 134. Bell was President of Thorp Springs Christian College during Moser's first year, and a teacher during the 1917-1918 academic year while Moser was still a student. In Bell's autobiography "Honor to Whom Honor is Due," Firm Foundation 68 (6 November 1951): 6, he emphasizes the tremendous impact Harding had on his life and thought that the church as a whole needed the kind of life-changing experience of Harding's teaching to revive it. For example, he believed Harding's doctrine of special providence, personal indwelling of the Spirit and empowerment of the Spirit as a divine-human encounter are "needed to save the church from changing divine dynamics to human mechanics." As with R. H. Boll and S. H. Hall, Harding's influence on R. C. Bell was transformational.

[194]Interview with J. D. Thomas, August 2, 1993, and interview with F. W. Mattox, August 2, 1993. See also J. D. Thomas, "Law and Grace (2)," Firm Foundation 100 (23 August 1983): 579 where he notes that R. C. Bell and G. C. Brewer were among the few who had a "good comprehension of grace" in the mid-twentieth century.

[195]J. D. Thomas, Romans (Austin: Sweet Publishing Co., 1965), 3. This was also a favorite quip of K. C. Moser, according to Times 5.17 (2 May 1971), a bulletin of the Burke Road Church of Christ in Pasenda, Texas, and former students, including Evertt Huffard.

[196]R. C. Bell, Studies in Romans (Austin: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1957), 8, 30. See also his Studies in Galatians (Austin: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1954), 27, 31, 35.

[197]Brewer, Christ Crucified: A Book of Sermons Together with a Lecture on Evolution (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1959; reprint of the 1928 edition).

[198]Ibid., 144-5.

[199]Ibid., 145.

[200]Ibid., 46-47. Of interest are two articles by Brewer on this subject in 1930. "What Shall We Preach to Make Men Cry, 'What Shall I do to be Saved'?," Gospel Advocate 72 (18 September 1930): 890-1; and 72 (25 September 1930): 914-5. Brewer believed that we should preach the "holiness and majesty of God" in conjunction with the "goodness and love of God." In other words, we need to exalt God so that we might see our sinfulness, and then to exalt Christ as the remedy to our sin. Then, when they are driven to Christ as Savior, we will be able to tell men what to do to be saved.

[201]Brewer, "How We Reach Perfection," Gospel Advocate 97 (10 November 1955): 1012.

[202]Ibid.

[203]Brewer, "Grace and Law: Liberalism and Legalism (No. 8)," Gospel Advocate 97 (21 July 1955): 633.

[204]Brewer, "Grace and Salvation," ACC, 127. Perceptively a questioner noted that this implies the "security of the believer," to which Brewer responded, yes, "the believer is secure," but "if he becomes an unbeliever--has his faith overthrown or denies the faith--he will be lost."

[205]F. W. Mattow believes it was self-taught. Interview with F. W. Mattox on August 3, 1993.

[206]Oran Rhodes, "The Law-Grace, Doctrine-Gospel Controversy," The Church and the Restoration Movement: The Fifth Annual Southwest Lectures, edited by Bill Jackson (Lebanon, TN: Sain Publishers, 1986), 396.

[207]Robert F. Turner, "Theology and the Gospel Preacher," Vanguard 2 (9 September 1976): 15. See also Gary Workman, "Grace and Law, Faith and Works in Galatians," in Studies in Galatians, edited by Dub McClish (Denton: Valid Publications, 1986), 290.

[208]Ron Halbrook, "Antidote to K. C. Moser's Views on Romans 4," Preceptor 31 (March 1982): 136.

[209]In 1976 Fanning Yater Tant, editory of the Vanguard, asked Robert Turner to writer a response to Moser's The Way of Salvation. This testifies to the enduring nature of his book, its use among the non-institutional segment of the Churches of Christ, and their unrelenting opposition to it. See "Theology and the Gospel Preacher," 1, 14-5; "Theological Coloring Book," Vanguard 2 (24 September 1976): 1, 14-5; "The Sinful 'Nature' of Man," Vanguard 2 (18 October 1976): 1, 18-9; "Wrestling with the 'Law of Sin'," Vanguard 2 (28 October 1976): 1, 11, 14; "System of Law and Faith," Vanguard 2 (11 November 1976): 1, 14-5; "The Imputation of Righteousness," Vanguard 2 (25 November 1976): 1, 14-5; and "What Must I Do To Be Saved," Vanguard 2 (9 December 1976): 1, 14-5.

[210]Moser, "Can the Gospel Be Obeyed?," 2.

[211]Showalter, "Obedience and Salvation," 5. Two other writers would eventually respond to Moser's article. Logan Buchanan, "Is It by Faith Alone: Review of K. C. Moser's Article," Firm Foundation 51 (3 April 1934): 8 objected to Moser's contention that commands are not part of the gospel, and contended that "my brethren are the only people in the world that do understand the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, and the only people that preach it as the Bible teaches." J. W. Chism, "Can the Gospel Be Obeyed?," Firm Foundation 51 (3 April 1934): 8 contended that obeying the gospel includes more than "first principles." It includes "all the commandments to be obeyed as Christians."

[212]Moser, "Reply to Brother Showalter," 8.

[213]Moser, "Saving Faith," 4. This point was made in the following context: "Some have dissected the 'plan of salvation' and attempted to define the spiritual state of the one who has believed, but who has not repented, and one who has believed, repented and confessed but who has not been baptized. This attempt was begotten of the erroneous idea that faith, repentance, confession, and baptism are four unrelated steps toward God. . . e.g., faith changes heart; repentance changes life; baptism changes state. They must be related as to the order of occurrence, but not necessarily so as to their significance."

[214]Moser, "Reply to Brother Showalter," 8.

[215]Ibid.

[216]Showalter, "'Faith Alone'," 4.

[217]Ibid.

[218]Ibid. This is demonstrated by his comment on Bogard. See footnote 52.

[219]The series of articles in the Vanguard by Robert Turner were prompted by Fanning Yater Tant, the son of J. D. Tant and editor of the Vanguard. Cf. Robert Turner, "Theology," 1.

[220]J. D. Tant, "In the Lower Rio Grande Valley," Firm Foundation 50 (21 March 1933): 2: "I feared when he went to Nashville that he was wandering from his earlier training. But Foy tells me he still holds the Bible ground he always has held. . . Since C. R. Nicol, R. L. Whiteside, and John T. Lewis have been added to the staff--men who have always stood firm against sect baptism--it may be they will yet bring the Advocate out on Bible Ground along all lines."

[221]As far as I have been able to determine, Moser did not publish any articles in the Advocate after Brewer's death.

[222]There was a period, of course, where the Firm Foundation changed directions in the mid-seventies through the early 1980s. But the paper was purchased by a conservative group and has returned to the original McGary-Tant tradition. H. A. (Buster) Dobbs and William Cline purchased the paper and began editorship on August 30, 1983.

[223]It is unnecessary to think specifically about the doctrine of "Christ's righteousness." The difference is illuminated if we understand what each tradition means by "God's righteousness": is it God's gift of his righteousness to us (a divine righteousness), or is it God's plan for making us righteous through obedience to his new law (plan)? The specific issue of the righteousness of Christ is, in some sense, superfluous, but it is an indicator.

[224]Whiteside, Commentary, 98-9; Guy N. Woods, "Righteousness," Gospel Advocate 104 (29 November 1962): 758-9 and "Transferred Righteousness?," Gospel Advocate 119 (1 November 1979): 675, 689.

[225]See, for example, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Number One Gospel Sermons (Nashville: Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Publications, 1967), 137.

[226]Whiteside, "Preach What?," 1374. See also Chism, 8, for whom obedience to the gospel is obedience to all the commands of the New Testament.

[227]S. H. Hall, Studies in Scripture, 130: "But don't forget the gospel of grace can be preached in the spirit of the law of works that destroys hope."

[228]A good example of this is Charles E. Crouch, "God's Plan of Salvation," Gospel Advocate 105 (3 October 1963): 625, 631-2.

[229]Bill Haberman, "Grace and Works," Firm Foundation 106 (October 1991): 5, "Salvation comes, they teach, by grace only. If 'we do not contribute one whit to our salvation,' then there is nothing for man to do. He is entirely passive in the salvation process, and God is the sole actor."

[230]Whiteside, Commentary, 93, writes concerning Moser: "If a Universalist or an Ultra-Calvinist had penned such words, we would not be surprised."

[231]Whiteside, Commentary, 97: "On God's side their salvation was wholly a matter of grace."

[232]See my "The Recovery of the Ancient Gospel: Alexander Campbell and the Design of Baptism," in Baptism and the Remission of Sins, ed. by David W. Fletcher (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Co., 1990), 111-70.

[233]Moser, "How Faith Saves," 3.

232Moser, "Righteousness of the Law," 2. At this point he was quoting I. B. Grubbs, Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 6th ed. (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, reprint n.d.), 13.

[234]Showalter, "Obedience," 5.

[235]The Spiritual Sword 19 (April 1988) issue is devoted to the theme of "Freedom in Christ." The articles are couched negatively so as to oppose the principle of antinomianism, e.g., "He is Not Free From the Restraints of Law" or "He is Not Free to Change God's Will," or "He is Not Free to Use His Liberty As a Cloak of Sin." On the principle of "salvation by works" and how this functions against an antinomian principle, see Robert Taylor, "Saved by Works," Spiritual Sword 7 (January 1976): 24-26. He writes (p. 25): "The promise of salvation is based on one's performing works of righteousness." Habermas, 5: "Saving faith requires obedience to every law of God (James 2:14-26). We do not obey our own plan of salvation but God's plan of salvation revealed by grace."

[236]Moser, Gist of Romans, 64, 67: "Conversion not only obligates one to live righteously, but it prepares one to do so. . . . If there is any difference in one's obligation to be dead to sin, the obligation has a greater emphasis under Christ. Law placed man under obligation to refain from sin, while graces recognizes the same obligation and, in addition, crucifies 'the old man' and prepares one for a life of righteousness." See his chapter on "Sanctification" in Way of Salvation, 157, where he writes "fellowship with God is impossible while one serves sin."

[237]The phrase "as best he can" is a reoccurring phrase in the discussion of grace for the Christian life. Representatives of both traditions use it. Brewer, "Grace and Law (No. 8)," 633: "Being thus committed to Christ, he continues to obey him as best he can . . . Failure to reach perfection will not mean a failure to reach heaven." Also Jerry Moffitt, "Grace and Law," "The Firm Foundation of God Standeth", edited by William S. Cline and John G. Priola (Pensacola, FL: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1984): 262, ". . . so we must walk in the light, following the law of Christ as best we can that we remain in that saving grace which we entered by obedience." Also Roy H. Lanier, "Walking By Faith," Gospel Advocate 96 (23 December 1954): 1009, "Faith working through love is nothing more than faith obeying the commandments of God as best we can because we love God . . . But faith obeying the commandments of God does not demand even perfect obedience to every commandments and permits, the mercy and grace of God in our salvation." But Harding, "Three Lessons From the Book of Romans," in Biographies and Sermons, ed. by F. D. Srygley (Nashville: F. D. Srygley, 1898), 247, questioned whether anyone ever really does the "best he can." Only Jesus did the best he could. As a result, "it is foolish for a man to talk about being saved by doing the best he knows how, when he has already failed thousands--perhaps millions--of times to do it."

[238]Battsell Barrett Baxter, "The Man and the Plan," Gospel Advocate 104 (27 September 1962): 610, 616, attempted to provide this unifying perspective in the midst of the raging controversy.

[239]This could also be illustrated by the manner in which Romans 4:5 is interpreted, though it is not particularly determinative of one's position. See, for example, the exchange between Moser and Crouch. Moser, "Thoughts on Romans 4," Gospel Advocate 89 (30 January 1947): 92-3; "Reply to Brother Crouch," Gospel Advocate 89 (3 July 1947): 462-3; and "My Final Reply to Brother Crouch," Gospel Advocate 89 (9 October 1947): 305. Cf. C. D. Crouch, "'Faith Reckoned for Righteousness'," Gospel Advocate 89 (1 May 1947): 305; "Brother Moser Replies (?)," Gospel Advocate 89 (14 August 1947): 612; and "Review of Brother Moser's 'Final Reply'," Gospel Advocate 89 (6 November 1947): 898, 903. Crouch also had an exchange with J. T. Stanfill, Jr. and Robert A. Waller in the Gospel Guardian. Cf. C. D. Couch, "Faith Reckoned as Righteousness," Gospel Guardian 3 (20 December 1951): 1, 5; "'How is Faith Reckoned?'," Gospel Guardian 3 (13 March 1952): 2; and "'How Is Faith Recokoned?'--No. 2," Gospel Guardian 4 (10 July 1952): 12. Cf. Stanfill, "How Is Faith Reckoned?," Gospel Guardian 3 (7 Feburary 1952): 10-11; "How is Faith Reackoned?--No. 2," Gospel Guardian 4 (1 May 1952): 3-4; and Waller, "Review of 'Faith Reckoned as Righteousness'," Gospel Guardian 3 (28 Feburary 1952): 11. A more recent example of this on-going discussion is Ron Halbrook, "Antidote To," 136.

[240]This view is well illustrated by J. B. Myers, "Law, Grace, and the Righteousness of God," Gospel Advocate 122 (21 January 1982): 47, 50; "Reply to 'The Righteousness of God--A Review'," Gospel Advocate 122 (18 March 1982): 166; and "The Basis of Grace," Gospel Advocate 123 (7 July 1983): 399-400. Guy N. Woods supports the view of Myers, and endorsed his first article as "superb." Woods has published this view himself, "Grace Versus All Law?," Gospel Advocate 122 (18 March 1982): 162, 179; "Transferred Righteousness?," 675, 689; "Transferred Righteousness: A Critique," Firm Foundation 107 (March 1992): 1, 5-6; and relevant articles in his two volumes Questions and Answers: Open Forum, Freed-Hardeman Lectures (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College, 1976) and Questions and Answers: Volume II (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1986).

[241]Myers, "Basis," 399.

[242]H. A. Dobbs, "Rapha," Firm Foundation 106 (October 1991): 3, "The Bible teaches we are actually righteous because of our obedience to the commands of God (Luke 6:46-49). Our righteousness is not a play-like, or imputed, righteousness. God saves us, but his mercy and grace are conditional and require action on our part."

[243]Woods, "Grace Versus Law," 162. After Woods published this article, while the Firm Foundation was under the editorship of Lemmons, a response was published by Gaylord Cook, "Imputed Righteousness," Firm Foundation 99 (14 December 1982): 794. Further, contrast this with Harding, "Three," 247: "Let no man, therefore, comfort himself with the reflection that he who does right will be saved; for no man, in the church or out of it, does right."

[244]On the idea of worthiness, see, for example, Moffitt, 259.

[245]Woods, "Transferred," 675.

[246]For example, Woods, Questions and Answers, 2:189: "It is hence clear that righteousness is that state or condition wherein one is approved of God, but God approves of those only who do right (keep his commandments); therefore, to possess the approval of God and the righteousness which he requires, one must do right, by keeping his commandments."

[247]Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Gospel For Today (Nashville: Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Publications, 1967), 235: "God's commands are not man's works."

[248]H. A. Dobbs, "More on I John 1:7," Firm Foundation 108 (December 1991), 378: "In the light of this inspired declaration (Psalm 119:172, JMH), it is difficult to see how anyone can be righteous short of obeying all--all--of the commands of God."

[249]The extremes of this position are well illustrated among the non-institutional fellowship. There has been a running debate over the past decade about what "walking in the light" means. Some argue that every sin removes one from the light, cf. Keith Sharp, "Walking in the Light," Preceptor 35 (March 1986): 154 [this particular issue was dedicated to this topic]; Ronny Mullins, "The Security of the Saint (3)," Searching the Scriptures 26 (March 1985): 346-8; Dick Blackford, "Judgment Day, the Mercy of God, and One Sin of Ignorance," Guardian of Truth 28 (19 April 1984): 227-8; Mike Willis, "Understanding 1 John 1:6-2:2," Guardian of Truth 25 (3 December 1981): 755-7, 25 (10 December 1981): 771-3; 25 (17 Decmeber 1981): 787-9; "Sinning While in the Light," Guardian of Truth 27 (6 October 1983): 578, 582-4 and Herschel E. Patton, "The Christian's Confidence," Guardian of Truth 28 (19 January 1984): 33, 52; (2 February 1984): 71-2; (16 February 1984): 106. The entire issue of Faith and Facts 9 (January 1981) is devoted to the defense of this perspective. Others argue for a more gracious position on sins of ignorance and weakness, cf. Dudley Ross Spears, "Walking in the Light," Guardian of Truth 28 (15 March 1984): 171-22. There have been frequent exchanges between the representatives of each camp among the non-institutional folks, cf. Robert Waters and Keith Sharp in The Preceptor 35 (June 1986): 234-44 and Robert Waters and Donnie V. Rader in Searching the Scriptures 27 (January 1986): 6-10; (February 1986): 31-5; and (March 1986): 53-8.

[250]One representative of this position is H. A. Dobbs, "On 1 John 1:7," Firm Foundation 106 (November 1991): 27; "More on 1 John 1:7," Firm Foundation 106 (December 1991): 379; "Demurs and Replies," Firm Foundation 107 (January 1992): 25-6; and "Demurs and Replies," Firm Foundation 107 (March 1992): 25-6. His basic point is that the cleansing of the blood is dependent upon keeping all the commands of God. Walking in the light is walking as Jesus walked--keeping all of God's commands. For example, "If. . . if. . . we walk in the light as he is in the light. If. . .if . . . we keep the commandments. . . all the commands . . . the blood of Christ is keeping us clean from all unrighteousness" ("More on 1 John 1:7," 379).

[251]Dobbs, "Demurs," (March), 25-6: "Shall we say a baby in Christ may violate the law by driving too fast, but the mature Christian may not. Then the question comes, at what point in growth does a person cross over the line and have to keep the law absolutely. . . Denominational people sometimes ask, "What if a penitent believer is on his way to be baptized and is struck by lightening and killed, will he be lost?" If you know the right answer to that question, you have solved the mystery of the speeding baby."

[252]Not all who emphasize the plan in opposition to Moser are willing to go as far as Dobbs. For example, R. L. Whiteside, Annual Lesson Commentary On Bible School Lessons (1937) (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1937), 291: "And when people walk in the light, not only is there fellowship between them, but they also have the cleansing blood of Christ. This blood cleanses such people from all sin. This would include all those sins of which we may not be conscious. God graciously blots out such sins, as well as those of which we are conscious and of which we repent; and the next three verses of the chapter show that all sin, whether consciously or unconsciously, and God is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, if we confess our sins. And that is a blessing for which every sincere disciple of Christ is profoundly thankful." Also, Whiteside, "'The Curse of the Law'," 82 (18 January 1940): 59, "In view of the above facts, we should rejoice that we 'are not under law, but under grace.' Grace can cope with sin. Sin is crucified in conversion, and the Holy Spirit is given the child of God to assist him in keeping the 'old man' under subjection. (Rom. 8:2,3,13.) Grace does not demand perfect obedience. We are saved by Christ, not by perfect obedience."

[253]Another issue which might be raised here is the rebaptism controversy of the late nineteenth century. For those who hold a "plan" construct submissive faith in Christ is not the bottom line in salvation, but also what one believes about the plan. We must not only comply with the plan, but we must have a right idea about it. I think this is the essential difference in the rebaptism controversy. Whereas Lipscomb and Harding focused on faith in Christ as the essential element in immersion, McGary and Tant focused on what one believed about baptism as part of the essential element. If one has a "plan" conception of justification, then what one believes about the plan is as necessary as faith in Christ. Consequently, if one is baptized as an expression of his trust in Christ, but misunderstands the role of baptism in the plan, trust in Christ is not sufficient for the remission of sins. This makes "right belief" about baptism equivalent in value to trust in Christ.

[254]My theological analysis supports my historical interpretation that the difference between Showalter and Moser (1930s), or, in contemporary terms, between Jimmy Allen and H. A. Buster Dobbs (1990s), is essentially the difference between Harding and Tant or Lipscomb and McGary (1890s). This difference may be summarized in this question: When one is immersed, which is the fundamental point--does he trust in Christ as his Savior or does he believe baptism is the point of entrance into Christ? The McGary-Tant tradition would argue both are equally important (that is, it is as equally important to believe the right things about the plan as it is to believe the right things about the man) but the Lipscomb-Harding tradition would argue that trust in Christ alone as Savior is the fundamental point, whether one understands the role of baptism in the plan or not. See the discussion between Allen and Dobbs, "The Continuation of a Discussion of Grace, Law, and Baptism Between H. A. (Buster) Dobbs and Jimmy Allen," Firm Foundation 106 (January 1991): 13-24 and "The Conclusion of a Discussion of Grace, Law, and Baptism Between H. A. (Buster) Dobbs and Jimmy Allen," Firm Foundation 106 (Feburary 1991): 24-29.

[255]Woodroof, 19. It is interesting that now Woodroof is facing the same charge as Moser. Cf. Wayne Coats, A Review of Another Liberal Digressive Effort: As Proposed by James Woodruff (sic) to Change The Church of Christ (Mt. Juliet, TN: Privately Published, n.d.), 32. "He now espouses the same old worn out theory about grace which the Baptists and others have advocated."

[256]James D. Bales, "The Church in Transition": To What? (Searcy, AR: J. D. Bales, Publisher, 1992), 38. F. W. Mattox also testifies to this tradition of grace among the early leaders of Harding College. Interview with Mattox on August 3, 1993.

[257]Brewer, "Grace and Salvation," ACC.

[258]Hughes, "Are Restorationists Evangelicals?," 125. Thomas specifically invited Brewer for this purpose. Interview with J. D. Thomas, August 3, 1993.

[259]J. D. Thomas is grateful for the influence K. C. Moser had on his thinking. Two of Thomas' books demonstrate that he drew his theology of grace from Moser's well. Cf. The Biblical Doctrine of Grace (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press, 1977) and Romans (Austin: Sweet Publishing Co., 1965).

[260]Moser, "Preaching the Conditions as Responses to the Atonement," 67-72, in The Unfinished Restoration: Eight Annual Lectureship, Lubbock Christian College (Lubbock, TX: Lubbock Christian College, 1965); "Faith Principle," 130-40, in Power for Today's Living: Ninth Annual Lectureship, Lubbock Christian College (Lubbock, TX: Lubbock Christian College, 1966); "How to Teach Hebrews," 167-174, in The Church in the Twenty-First Century: Tenth Annual Lectureship, Lubbock Christian College (Lubbock, TX: Lubbock Christian College, 1966).

[261]Moser, Redemption in Acts and the Letters (Austin: Sweet Publishing Co., 1964); Attributes of God (Austin: Sweet Publishing Co., 1964); Galatians (Austin: Sweet Publishing Co., 1965); and Studies in Hebrews (Austin: Sweet Publishing Co., 1972).

[262]Allen, Distant Voices, 169.

[263]The rebaptism issue is another piece of this evidence that reflects a west to east shift. The McGary position came to take up residence at the Advocate in Wallace and has remained a stable position there, whereas the Lipscomb-Harding tradition is now strong in Texas. Harding University, the heir of Harding and Armstrong, has remained consistently opposed to McGary's position on rebaptism. Cf. Jimmy Allen, Re-baptism? What One Must Know To Be Born Again (West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing, 1991), 10, 98-108, 114-9.

[264] [265]This was Moser's first article as a staff member of the Gospel Advocate.

[266]This was Moser's last "Text and Context" column.

[267]Moser was removed from among the staff writers of the Gospel Advocate. His last appearance on the staff list was August 24, 1933.

[268]There is an article entitled "How the Spirit Converts. No. 4," FF, October 19, 1926, p. 2, which is ascribed to Moser, but this is part of another series by Calhoun(?). This was probably a misprint on the name. Check to see with which series it is most fluid.

[269]This was published while Showalter was away from the office. He replied to it at his next opportunity.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download