What do you think?
Rate this book
House Divided: The Break Up of Dispensational Theology
From dust jacket: The year 2001 will bring a new millennium: the seventh after the creation and the third after the birth of Jesus Christ. This is the greatest opportunity for evangelism in world history. In less than a dozen years, the world will change drastically. Will it be for the better or the worse?
Dispensationalist automatically answer: "Worse!" But their system is in deep trouble. The year 1988 marked the beginning of dispensationalism's "great tribulation": the Rapture did not take place. It was supposed to (actually, it should have taken place in 1981: 1988 - 7 = 1981). The nation of Israel was founded in May of 1948. Forty years constitutes one generation in the Bible, and 1988 was supposed to complete "the generation of the fig tree." Mr. Whisenant's book gave the world 88 reasons why the Rapture would take place in September, 1988, and (he says) over four million copies were printed. People believed!
It didn't happen. Fooled again. And a lot of Christians vowed: Never again! (How about you?)
Meanwhile, the intellectual movement known as Christian Reconstruction was spreading rapidly in dispensational circles. Spokesmen for the dispensational camp in 1988 concluded that dispensationlism's forty-year tactic of the academic black-out could no longer work. They would have to respond publicly to the Reconstructionists' detailed published criticisms of the dispensationalist system. They would have to refute the Reconstructionists' claim that God's Old Testament civil laws are still valid for society and that there is a bright future ahead for Christianity before Jesus returns.
Four dispensational authors responded as an unofficial team. Their three books appeared in rapid succession: Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?, by H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice; Whatever Happened to Heaven?, by Dave Hunt; and The Road to Holocaust, by Hal Lindsey. The arguments of all three books are answered in detail by House Divided.
What House Divided demonstrates is that dispensational theology has now been shattered by its own defenders. They are not willing to defend the original system and their drastic modifications have left it a broken shell. They are also deeply divided among themselves on the crucial questions of biblical interpretation and social activism. In short, today's defenders of dispensationalism "destroyed the system in order to save it." No one has attempted to put this shattered theological system back together. No one will even outline its main points.
If House Divided is correct, then by then year 2001, we could see a very different church in the United States and on the world mission field. The question of the hour is: What kind of church? An optimistic, victorious church on the march for Jesus, or one huddled in a corner, not knowing what it believes any more?
Which church do you believe in? If you are tired of being in the corner, tired of waiting around for the Rapture that doesn't come, read House Divided. It offers new hope to Christians...if they are ready to get out of the corner and get to work.
Dispensationalist automatically answer: "Worse!" But their system is in deep trouble. The year 1988 marked the beginning of dispensationalism's "great tribulation": the Rapture did not take place. It was supposed to (actually, it should have taken place in 1981: 1988 - 7 = 1981). The nation of Israel was founded in May of 1948. Forty years constitutes one generation in the Bible, and 1988 was supposed to complete "the generation of the fig tree." Mr. Whisenant's book gave the world 88 reasons why the Rapture would take place in September, 1988, and (he says) over four million copies were printed. People believed!
It didn't happen. Fooled again. And a lot of Christians vowed: Never again! (How about you?)
Meanwhile, the intellectual movement known as Christian Reconstruction was spreading rapidly in dispensational circles. Spokesmen for the dispensational camp in 1988 concluded that dispensationlism's forty-year tactic of the academic black-out could no longer work. They would have to respond publicly to the Reconstructionists' detailed published criticisms of the dispensationalist system. They would have to refute the Reconstructionists' claim that God's Old Testament civil laws are still valid for society and that there is a bright future ahead for Christianity before Jesus returns.
Four dispensational authors responded as an unofficial team. Their three books appeared in rapid succession: Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?, by H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice; Whatever Happened to Heaven?, by Dave Hunt; and The Road to Holocaust, by Hal Lindsey. The arguments of all three books are answered in detail by House Divided.
What House Divided demonstrates is that dispensational theology has now been shattered by its own defenders. They are not willing to defend the original system and their drastic modifications have left it a broken shell. They are also deeply divided among themselves on the crucial questions of biblical interpretation and social activism. In short, today's defenders of dispensationalism "destroyed the system in order to save it." No one has attempted to put this shattered theological system back together. No one will even outline its main points.
If House Divided is correct, then by then year 2001, we could see a very different church in the United States and on the world mission field. The question of the hour is: What kind of church? An optimistic, victorious church on the march for Jesus, or one huddled in a corner, not knowing what it believes any more?
Which church do you believe in? If you are tired of being in the corner, tired of waiting around for the Rapture that doesn't come, read House Divided. It offers new hope to Christians...if they are ready to get out of the corner and get to work.
481 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1989
2 people are currently reading
165 people want to read
About the author
Greg L. Bahnsen
77 books145 followersGreg L. Bahnsen was an influential Calvinist Christian philosopher, apologist, and debater. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
June 11, 2012
Ouch! And as a closet dispensationalist, let me just say...ouch!
This book was a response to a book by two dispensational authors (H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice) attempting to refute the Christian Reconstructionism movement called, "Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?"
I have to believe that when House and Ice took on the Reconstructionist movement, they didn't fully understand who they were debating. Either that, or they just wanted to write a book that could be completely discredited. In three broad strokes, Bahnsen and Gentry dismantle every charge laid against their teaching in House and Ice's book.
Part I - The Ethical Question
This part deals with House and Ice's critique of an ethical view known as theonomy. Bahnsen does a masterful job of defending his view against House and Ice's attempt to "prove" him wrong. During the exchange he also exposes the poor scholarship in their own book.
Part II - The Eschatological Question
This part deals with House and Ice's critique of postmillennial theology. Here Gentry has a turn at exposing poor exegesis and even poorer scholarship.
Part III - The Scholarly Question
As if it didn't come out enough in the previous two sections, this part deals with the lamentably low standards of scholarship in House and Ice's "Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?" It shows their unfamiliarity with the original languages, with church history, and with historical context. The sad thing is, House and Ice are not that unfamiliar with these things. But they were so clearly out of their league they looked like they were no where close to being considered a scholar (i.e. one who does his research and actually knows the content of the thing he is trying to establish, defend, or refute).
Simply put, this book buried House and Ice's work and made the silent but regrettably understood adage that "dispensationalists are not scholars" that more believable. The thing is, I am a dispensationalist. While this book didn't fully persuade me to jump ship, it certainly got my attention. Maybe dispensationalists don't have all the answers.
Addressed to the "inquisitive dispensational reader who is willing to consider the possibility of having to rethink his position" (p. xlv), this book hit its aim right on the mark. I can't say that I have abandoned a dispensational understanding of the Scriptures. I certainly haven't (not just yet at least). But I can say I do now have to rethink my position. And by God's grace I carefully will.
This book was a response to a book by two dispensational authors (H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice) attempting to refute the Christian Reconstructionism movement called, "Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?"
I have to believe that when House and Ice took on the Reconstructionist movement, they didn't fully understand who they were debating. Either that, or they just wanted to write a book that could be completely discredited. In three broad strokes, Bahnsen and Gentry dismantle every charge laid against their teaching in House and Ice's book.
Part I - The Ethical Question
This part deals with House and Ice's critique of an ethical view known as theonomy. Bahnsen does a masterful job of defending his view against House and Ice's attempt to "prove" him wrong. During the exchange he also exposes the poor scholarship in their own book.
Part II - The Eschatological Question
This part deals with House and Ice's critique of postmillennial theology. Here Gentry has a turn at exposing poor exegesis and even poorer scholarship.
Part III - The Scholarly Question
As if it didn't come out enough in the previous two sections, this part deals with the lamentably low standards of scholarship in House and Ice's "Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?" It shows their unfamiliarity with the original languages, with church history, and with historical context. The sad thing is, House and Ice are not that unfamiliar with these things. But they were so clearly out of their league they looked like they were no where close to being considered a scholar (i.e. one who does his research and actually knows the content of the thing he is trying to establish, defend, or refute).
Simply put, this book buried House and Ice's work and made the silent but regrettably understood adage that "dispensationalists are not scholars" that more believable. The thing is, I am a dispensationalist. While this book didn't fully persuade me to jump ship, it certainly got my attention. Maybe dispensationalists don't have all the answers.
Addressed to the "inquisitive dispensational reader who is willing to consider the possibility of having to rethink his position" (p. xlv), this book hit its aim right on the mark. I can't say that I have abandoned a dispensational understanding of the Scriptures. I certainly haven't (not just yet at least). But I can say I do now have to rethink my position. And by God's grace I carefully will.
October 18, 2013
It is unusual for me to pick up a book and not be able to put it down. This was definitely one of those books. The book is logically organized and written in an easy to understand style.
I found the writers making a biblical and historical defence of the Reconstructionist position that, although I am not completely convinced, I am intrigued to investigate further. The book does make an excellent argument for the Post Millennium position while completely dismantling the pessimistic Dispensational view. The Appendix even contains a side by side comparison of the Jehovah Witnesses positions with the similarities of the Dispensationalist.
Although the book is written as a response to Dominion Theology by House and Ice from a Reconstructionist point of view, those whom do not hold such a position will still find the book worthy of reading. I have been instilled with a new sense of excitement concerning the Post Mil/Partial Preterist position after reading thus book because: a) It is biblical and makes the Bible more grandeur, b) It is historical as far back as the early church fathers, c) God is displayed as being more sovereign( If that's possible) and in complete control, d) There is a much higher level of hope and victory led by King Jesus, e) How we view evangelism is radically influenced by our eschatology, f) Biblical prophecy is larger and more accurate than the Dispensationalist who uses the latest headlines to guide them, g) Jesus is ruling and reigning and is not in a position of defeat.
I found the writers making a biblical and historical defence of the Reconstructionist position that, although I am not completely convinced, I am intrigued to investigate further. The book does make an excellent argument for the Post Millennium position while completely dismantling the pessimistic Dispensational view. The Appendix even contains a side by side comparison of the Jehovah Witnesses positions with the similarities of the Dispensationalist.
Although the book is written as a response to Dominion Theology by House and Ice from a Reconstructionist point of view, those whom do not hold such a position will still find the book worthy of reading. I have been instilled with a new sense of excitement concerning the Post Mil/Partial Preterist position after reading thus book because: a) It is biblical and makes the Bible more grandeur, b) It is historical as far back as the early church fathers, c) God is displayed as being more sovereign( If that's possible) and in complete control, d) There is a much higher level of hope and victory led by King Jesus, e) How we view evangelism is radically influenced by our eschatology, f) Biblical prophecy is larger and more accurate than the Dispensationalist who uses the latest headlines to guide them, g) Jesus is ruling and reigning and is not in a position of defeat.
May 21, 2021
Great book! It’s sad that books like this have to be written to defend against sloppy and dishonest “scholars” like Thomas Ice and Wayne House. The teaching sections of the book were terrific. The endless mistakes and misrepresentations in Ice and House’s book got a little tedious.
The book is very thorough and well cited. I learned much, and was strengthened in my faith in Christ and the ultimate success of His gospel.
The book is very thorough and well cited. I learned much, and was strengthened in my faith in Christ and the ultimate success of His gospel.
August 10, 2011
One of the books that I'm reading against Dispensationalism. They bring up some good point against dispensationalism, some I had already thought of; some of the criticisms seemed to exagerate dispensationalism unfairly. Bahnsen and Gentry put together a reasonable case for their reconstructionist postmillennial view. However, I feel if I accepted their views wholeheartedly I'd just be trading one faulty system for another.
February 12, 2022
Dated in many ways, but this was worth it for reading the clear argumentation of Bahnsen.
February 22, 2023
Great smackdown of dispensationalism and defense of theonomy and preterism/post-mill beliefs.
March 1, 2023
A thorough refutation of "Dominion Theology" by coauthors House and Ice, and an interesting explanation of the Reconstruction movement with particular focus on Theonomy and Postmillennialism.
May 17, 2013
From a dispensational perspective, this book is a fair defense of both Covenant Theology and Christian Reconstructionism. Publisher's preface had a different tone than the rest of the book (less scholarly that the rest perhaps?) but well stated nonetheless. Some of the assertions made by the authors might be a little to broad, but one can sympathize with their views. Overall, Bahnsen is an apologetic genius, and Gentry well-versed in Covenant Theology. Regrettably, I do admit that they do point out some holes in premillenial-dispensationalism. Now I just need to patch them up...
October 11, 2014
It's okay. Bahnsen/Gentry clearly won the debate, but I fear it may have been a Pyrrhic victory. Dispensationalism has since moved on and today's leading dispensational scholars, while they would disagree with Bahnsen, dont' hold to the House/Ice school. Bahnsen's arguments, while impressive, might not work today.
February 2, 2016
There is way to much time spent pointing out the errors of a dispensationalist book. The authors of this book do a good job of explaining why dispensationalism is unbiblical but they take too many pages to do it.
April 13, 2009
Good plus.
January 10, 2015
This book is singly responsible for me rejecting Dispensationalism, whole cloth.
March 7, 2010
Muito bom!
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews