Customer Reviews

House Divided: The Break Up of Dispensational Theology

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a great example of good scholarship. Written in response to House and Ice's Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse, it demonstrates just how poor dispensational scholarship at the time was and why, I believe, House later admitted he wished he never wrote Dominion Theology (I am paraphrasing, obviously). You could even use this book as a course in logic and refutation as it clearly demonstrates how to think and argue clearly and, most importantly, recognize fallacies and poor argumentation. It has actually become a book I read for pleasure as there are parts that are laugh-out-loud funny. Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse has so many theological, representative, and reference flaws it's embarrassing.

Of course, I'm not dealing here with the merits of either side, though it is very clear that at the time - and in my opinion still today with the newer forms - dispensationalism is walking on thin ice (no pun intended) and is lacking when it comes to biblically defending its position or, in this case, attacking that of Bahnsen and Gentry.

Ultimately, House and Ice simply got into the ring with heavyweights and were in no way prepared to deal with them. Bahnsen was (and remains in his works) a force to be reckoned with wherever you stand on the issues (and his opponents have always conceded that)and Gentry shows his merit as well. For those interested in this "old" issue as some call it, but who also recognize that the opponents have still never been able to fairly represent and adequately answer the general Theonomic position, then this is a great addition to your library. For those who want to oppose Bahnsen and Gentry and others at this point, this is also a book you should study well (in addition to many others) so that hopefully your response will be something better than House, Ice, Dallas, Westminster and many others have been able to conjure up.

The late Dr. Greg Bahnsen along with co-author Dr. Kenneth Gentry do a masterful job of interacting with leading dispensational critics of theonomy and demonstate their extremely slanderous writings. In doing so the authors also point out how dispensationalism is a skeleton in a closet whose proper burial is long over due and how modern defenders are losing the battle to defend this corpse. Bahnsen and Gentry demonstrate how postmillenialism is NOT some utopian materialistic option but is one based on a proper view of GOD's soveriegn rule over history and how this will eventually be seen in culture. In the long line of great orthodox postmillenialists such as St. Augustine and St. Athanasius, J. Gresham Machen and others Bahnsen and Gentry do a great service to the evangelical church in giving us an alternative to a school of thought whose burial is long over due.

This is a work worthy of attention. The critique of Dispensationalism is valid. And, despite the somewhat negative review above, the Postmil view espoused in this book cannot be fairly labeled as merely utopian, and certainly the victory and hope found in Postmil does not deny the teachings of Christ concerning the poor in spirit or those who mourn. Instead, the hope is a final hope. Christ will indeed be vicotrious. That is what is interpreted by Postmils. In fact, Postmil teaching is more often criticized for suggesting GREATER trials instore than it is for offering some type of Utopian bliss. Give it a fair read. It will be informative and worthy of consideration.

The critique of the pathetic "scholarship" of Hal Lindsey is worth the price of the book. The authors show Lindsey to be an unreliable teacher who has no knowledge of Greek (indeed he severly twists its meaning) and to be ignorant of the entire system of Christian Reconstructionism.

For those who think that postmillenialists are utopian I can only say that you have never read the standard works on the subject.

The authors do a great job of pointing out how critics of Reconstructionist theology misrepresent it. Unfortunately thay also betray the materialistic nature of their own Postmillenial world-view. They reason that Christians will dominate in the future since God blesses Covenant keepers and curses covenant breakers. They take prosperity to be a blessing (when it often is a curse) and forget that Christ said "Blessed are they who mourn, are persecuted, reviled, are poor, etc." Their postmillenial thought is just as Utopian as the Dispensationalism they criticize.