Featured I've been Wondering

Dr. Bauder assumes in his essay that Rice opposed Chafer’s book because of his position on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and then further assumes that Rice’s book The Power of Pentecost was in answer to Chafer’s True Evangelism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In the first place, Chafer says very little in his book about the baptism of the Holy Spirit except to say that it was when a believer was put into the body of Christ (45-47). He does distinguish between the filling of the Spirit and the receiving of the Spirit, writing, “It is possible and necessary to be ‘filled with the Spirit’ anew for every time of need (Eph. v.18); but that should never be confused with receiving the Spirit, which is one of the aspects of the first tense of salvation” (43-44). But this is close to Rice’s view, except that Rice believed that the filling and baptism of the Spirit were the same thing, based on the fact that both terms are used in Scripture for the same event in Acts 2!

Furthermore, notice that the letter written to Moody Press by 47 evangelists did not even mention this issue as important. Why? Because Chafer’s position on the baptism of the Spirit was not what they were objecting to! Bob Jones Sr. wrote the petition to Don Norman, director of Moody Press, with Hyman Appelman seconding it. Their points were as follows: I. They thanked God for Moody Press and MBI. II. They thanked God for Chafer and his ministry and prayed God’s blessing on Dallas Theological Seminary, which he led. III. They said that they opposed Chafer’s book because it discouraged the work done by such evangelists as Moody, Torrey, Chapman, etc. 1. They objected to Chafer calling full time evangelists “false forces in evangelism.” 2. They objected to Chafer’s view that the evangelist shouldn’t preach against sin. 3. They objected to Chafer’s opposition to the public invitation. 4. They said that “The book teaches that it is wrong to do personal work except when lost people request it.” 5. They objected to Chafer’s taking up “the accusations of the ungodly against evangelists.” 6. They objected to the idea of prayer as the main means of evangelism. IV. They said they believed the book “misrepresents Moody Bible Institute.” V. They petitioned that the book be dropped from publication.

This document is quoted in full in Sumner’s book (193-195). Dr. Bauder should be able to easily access it if he wishes to further study the incident as an historian. Furthermore, nothing in the resolution says anything about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John R. Rice did not write The Power of Pentecost to answer Chafer. In fact, he says in the Introduction to that book that he had actually finished the first draft of the manuscript seventeen years earlier, which would have been 1932, over a decade before the Chafer controversy. I suggest that Dr. Bauder needs to research more thoroughly before speculating.

If any book of Rice’s were written in answer to Chafer it would have been The Evangelist, which mentions Chafer several times. But that book was not published until 1968, decades after the controversy, and made no effort to systematically rebut Chafer.

 

Bauder (in my opinion) is attempting to bring to light one element of disgrace in IFB which has too long been glaringly sinful.

However, in doing so, unfortunately, he has used Dr. Rice to pin as an example.

For those of us who knew some of the "great" men now long with the Lord, it is not a comfortable read, for we have great esteem for these men, and fond memories. Though we have controversy (as John of Japan pointed out about Dr. Rice) with some of their thinking, such is usually placed in light of the character, background, and emphasis the Lord had for each.

Even they all disagreed with each other in areas, but men of prayer and men of work such as these like Dr. Rice were men of unblemished legacy.

Unfortunately, certain such as from Norris and Hyles have and continue to do much damage.

On a personal note, had Rice, Jones, Brown, Appleman, ... continued in strength of mind and body throughout the 1900's, some such as Hyles (et al) would have been dethroned and their pernicious evil, unbiblical teaching, and their ungodly living would have been exposed.

However, that does not excuse Bauder.

Bauder expects the Holy Spirit's work is acquired and enhanced by the intellect.

The ONE area he misses is putting intellect (note the reference to Rice's education) as indicating understanding and knowledge of God.

Such men as Jones, Rice, Brown, Ham, Appleman,... not only new how to pray, but realized the results of humble prayer in terms of God glorifying results. Not a single one would state such was a result of their own intellect, but of being sensitive to the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

They put the emphasis not upon intellectual pursuit (though it was important to each) but upon Holy Spirit leading by the Lord, personal honesty with God and man, and daily fellowship in His word.

Bauder though correctly threading the arrow in the bow, adequately pulling back the string, missed the target. (thought I would put in a hunting illustration - sense he likes to hunt)