This book is a Reformed response to Keith Mathison's multi-authored book When Shall These Things Be? which was a critique and condemnation of "hyper-preterism." Samuel Frost, David Green, Edward Hassertt and Michael Sullivan demonstrate that the advent of full preterism in church history is the result of "organic development" from within the historic, Reformed church, and that it represents the uniting of the divided house of Reformed eschatology. As the authors navigate through the confusing maze of the Mathison volume, they overturn the arguments that the authors of that book levied against the truth that Jesus Himself taught in no uncertain terms.
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Authors
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
16 of 23 people found the following review helpful
By Gamaliel
Format:Paperback
Gary DeMar's excellent book, "Last Days Madness" introduced me to the preterist view of eschatology. Since first being introduced to the preterist view I have spent the last several years trying to get a good grasp of Biblical eschatology. As the authors of "House Divided" insist, the logical conclusion of the partial-preterist position is to leave one at the doorstep of full-preterism. This has been true for me. I have been left in that gray area in between partial-preterism and full-preterism trying to be fully convinced one way or the other.
"House Divided" brilliantly points out the inherent problems and inconsistencies many of us see within the partial preterist position. In fact, the inconsistencies were worse than I even imagined. The very words of the authors of "When Shall These Things Be" are used to point out this very problem. Not only do the authors of "When Shall These Things Be" contradict each other, they many times contradict themselves in their own writings. Do honest students not see a problem with this?? I now understand why those who authored "When Shall These Things Be" and other leading Reformed partial preterist refuse to debate these issues in a open and formal debate. Their own writings condemn them!
For those, who like me, are searching for truth and a proper understanding of Biblical eschatology this is a must read. I hope the authors of "When Shall These Things Be" will get their act together and write a consistent, clear and Biblical response the the issues and objections raised in "House Divided". This is a "problem" that is not going away for those who care about consistency and Truth.
"House Divided" brilliantly points out the inherent problems and inconsistencies many of us see within the partial preterist position. In fact, the inconsistencies were worse than I even imagined. The very words of the authors of "When Shall These Things Be" are used to point out this very problem. Not only do the authors of "When Shall These Things Be" contradict each other, they many times contradict themselves in their own writings. Do honest students not see a problem with this?? I now understand why those who authored "When Shall These Things Be" and other leading Reformed partial preterist refuse to debate these issues in a open and formal debate. Their own writings condemn them!
For those, who like me, are searching for truth and a proper understanding of Biblical eschatology this is a must read. I hope the authors of "When Shall These Things Be" will get their act together and write a consistent, clear and Biblical response the the issues and objections raised in "House Divided". This is a "problem" that is not going away for those who care about consistency and Truth.
11 of 16 people found the following review helpful
By Denny S.
Format:Paperback
The book misses on a few counts.
First, had AD 70 been the final coming of Christ, the early followers would have experienced it at the cognitive and personal level and passed that info on. The event was kind of a big deal and could not have been left out of the early discussions and doctrines. So, this book's thesis doesn't pass the most basic smell test.
Next, the arguments about tradition vs. Sola Scriptura are much ado about nothing, as Sola Scriptura is also a tradition and is not something mandated in scripture. (Sola Scriptura is an assumed principle hatched during the Reformation.) So, if some people insist that early church history matters regarding eschatology, they have a valid point. I see no reason that the Sola Scriptura tradition of the 1600s should trump the all-is-not-finished tradition of the first four centuries of church history (and every century since).
Finally, the matter can never be settled, even if one assumes Sola Scriptura. All scripture was written prior to AD 70, and scripture lacks a written confirmation after the fact. So, the bible is basically silent on the matter, and everything else is extra-biblical speculation. (And who can be dogmatic about extra-biblical speculations?) This dilemma could have been averted if just one book had been written in AD71 saying, "It's all finished - every last bit." But alas, scripture was written prior to AD 70, and every eschatological book of the New Testament is forward-looking. So, no one can ever know for sure if all is complete, especially those who swear by Sola Scriptura.
First, had AD 70 been the final coming of Christ, the early followers would have experienced it at the cognitive and personal level and passed that info on. The event was kind of a big deal and could not have been left out of the early discussions and doctrines. So, this book's thesis doesn't pass the most basic smell test.
Next, the arguments about tradition vs. Sola Scriptura are much ado about nothing, as Sola Scriptura is also a tradition and is not something mandated in scripture. (Sola Scriptura is an assumed principle hatched during the Reformation.) So, if some people insist that early church history matters regarding eschatology, they have a valid point. I see no reason that the Sola Scriptura tradition of the 1600s should trump the all-is-not-finished tradition of the first four centuries of church history (and every century since).
Finally, the matter can never be settled, even if one assumes Sola Scriptura. All scripture was written prior to AD 70, and scripture lacks a written confirmation after the fact. So, the bible is basically silent on the matter, and everything else is extra-biblical speculation. (And who can be dogmatic about extra-biblical speculations?) This dilemma could have been averted if just one book had been written in AD71 saying, "It's all finished - every last bit." But alas, scripture was written prior to AD 70, and every eschatological book of the New Testament is forward-looking. So, no one can ever know for sure if all is complete, especially those who swear by Sola Scriptura.
10 of 16 people found the following review helpful
By Alan Bondar
Format:Paperback
There you go - A Must Read! You can put that on your second edition from a legitimate source. This book should be read by everybody - no exceptions. If you can manage to get through a book of contradictions, then I recommend you read When Shall These Be? first. It is written by some of the most renown scholars in the Reformed tradition. After reading House Divided, you will then see that the authors of When Shall These Things Be? are truly brilliant men, except when it comes to eschatology. Why? Because they are ultimately bound by Tradition and not by Scripture. House Divided demonstrates that and will bring to light the truth of full preterism for all who have been taught to think like the authors of When Shall These Things Be? If House Divided doesn't make you realize the absurdity of futurism, then you have lost your ability to reason logically and Biblically. Before you condemn full preterists or a book on full preterism, read House Divided. You will no longer be able to condemn this doctrine.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Why The Reformation Must Continue
Reformed authors within the creedal tradition show clearly why there is no coherent response to full preterism. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
Published 2 months ago by R S Shaffer
3.0 out of 5 stars
A very good read
As a Baptist I find the first part of the book irrelevant. Protestants fighting over creedal issues is not my bag. Read more
Published 2 months ago by Frank T
1.0 out of 5 stars
Warning: Heresy ahead
Author David Green was more forthright on the web than he is in this book. David said,
"Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full]... Read more
"Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full]... Read more
Published on February 2, 2011 by carynification
4.0 out of 5 stars
House Divided-good read
Just finished "A House Divided", and must say alot of questions were answered, and inconsistencies of the "partial preterist" view made clear, (much less any dispensational... Read more
Published on January 27, 2011 by Lane
4.0 out of 5 stars
solid defense of hyper preterism
the authors of this book offer a solid response to mathison's book When Shall These Things Be. each chapter deals head on with the criticisms of hyper-creedalism. Read more
Published on April 7, 2010 by Todd T. Stevenson
1.0 out of 5 stars
Not so fast fans! Look harder, see speculation & heresy
This book is a defense of anti-Nicene Christianity.
It is time people stopped wasting time and return to Apostolic Christianity. Read more
It is time people stopped wasting time and return to Apostolic Christianity. Read more
Published on August 25, 2009 by John Chrysostom
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Sound Refutation
This is a very well written, cohesive, and consistent review of "When Shall These Things Be? (a reformed response to hyperpreterism). Read more
Published on August 16, 2009 by C. Winn
5.0 out of 5 stars
Very Much Worth The Wait!
When Mathison and his contributors rolled out "When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism," it was hailed as "the" scholarly response to true preterism. Read more
Published on August 7, 2009 by Don K. Preston
1.0 out of 5 stars
Former Full Preterist Responds
November 24, 2011
Intro: The first time I read this book, I had been a full preterist for seven years. Read more
Intro: The first time I read this book, I had been a full preterist for seven years. Read more
Published on July 26, 2009 by Sharon G. Nichols
5.0 out of 5 stars
At Last! A Formal Response to Keith Mathison and When Shall These...
David Green's chapter on "The Arbitrary Principle of Hyper-Creedalism" is well worth the price of the book alone!! Read more
Published on July 23, 2009 by J. Scalise
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
