8/12/2019 1989 Issue 10 - House Divided: The Break Up of Dispensational Theology - Counsel of Chalcedon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1989-issue-10-house-divided-the-break-up-of-dispensational-theology-counsel 1/4

House Dividedhe Break-Up of Dispensational Theology

A Review Article by Martin G. Selbrede

H ouse Divided: TheBreak-Up o f Dispenm-tional Theology by

Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L.Gentry, Jr. Published 1989 by the Institute for Christian Economics, Tyler,Texas. 38 pg . Publisher's Foreword, 6 .pg . Authors' Preface, 411 pg . includingappendices, annotated bibliography,scripture & general indices. Reviewedby Martin G. Selbrede, Thousand Oaks,California.

This volume was occasionedby the publication of Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse by WayneHouse and Tommy Ice. he reader isimmediately immersed in one of Chris

. ianity's uglier war zones - and isnailed to the battlefield for 400+ pages .

The work is subdivided intotwo main sections covering Ethics (byDr. Bahnsen) and Eschatology (by Dr.Gentry), preceded by the apparently obligatory Exercise in Scorn (by Dr . GaryNorth). The work concludes with con

siderable additional material by Dr. Gentry on the question of scholarship lapses on the part of Mes srs. House andIce as well as Dr. Gentry's response toHal Lindsey's The Road to Holocaust

(Appendix B) . A brief discu ssion onTheological Schizophrenia by GaryDeMar (Appendix A) examines the practical self -contradictions inherent in thepronouncements of avowed anti-Reconstructionists. We briefly examine Dr.North 's Foreword before eng ag ing ourauthors' argumentation.

Squeaky wheels get thegrease . Dr . North's long-term strategyis to flush out his opponents (pp.xxxii, xxxix, xlv) as Reconstruction'sself-appointed hunting dog. CitingMartin Luther (pg. xxxviii) as his ostensible mentor( ), he write s "o f fensivelyto provoke response. Dr. North doesn 'tlimit this strategy to dispensationalists(e.g . his savage attack on dietary lawto flush out Dr . Rushdoony, etc.) For

quite different reasons, it may be said ofDr. North what was once said of DeanBurgan: He was incapable of writing adull page.

1be lesson House Dividedseeks to instill in the reader is containedon pages 2 380, where Proverbs18:17 is quoted: The first to plead hiscase seems just, until another comesand examines hi m . Biblical justice

. . ...

(not to mention Christian charity) demanded that this reviewer contact thetargets of House Divided, Dr. WayneHouse and Tommy Ice , and hear theirside of the question , which he did onOct. 23, 1989. The additional light shedin these candid conversations provedindispensable in fairly evaluating Hous eDivided.

Drs. Bahnsen and Gentry in-troduce this book with an historicalaside regarding Dr. W ayneHouse 's withdrawal from a planned debate with Dr .Bahnsen, scheduled May 13, 1989 (pg.6-7). (Not mentioned is Dr . Bahnsen'scancellation, for health reasons, of severallate-1988 debates with Dr. House,even though he reportedly made publicappearances during the same period.) ·True, Dr . House declined to permitcross -examination in the 1989 debate .

This being the second debate he'd everdone in his life, against a nationallyfamous logician/debater, Dr. Housechose the path of discretion. AlthoughDr. Bahnsen believed cross-examinationwould have been "a true test of the twoconflicting theological po sitions (pg.7), Dr. House saw the format as merelyfavoring the better debater (as in theScopes Trial). In the absence of a forumin which. to answer the charges advancedby House and Ice in Domini on Theology, the need to write Hou se Dividedbecame manifest

And so House D ivided wasborn . This heavily-footnoted volume(1,143 footnotes compared to 798 forHouse/Ice and 181 for Lindsey's Roadto Holo caust) reads more like a detective novel than a theology book. Wereconstructionists like to believe thatour guys wear the white hats, and thatwe practice what we preach; by andlarge, Dr. Bahnsen and Dr . Gentry donot disappoint in these respects. Onseveral occasions, human fallibilitysqueezes through a crack in their otherwise impeccable scholarship . Lindsey isfaulted for wrongly attributing the inkblot tests to Freud (pg. 370), but inopenly corrected Lindsey, HouseDivided promptly misspells Rorschachtwice While House Divided bemoansth Hous e/ I ce practice of placing theworst possible interpretation on a Reconstructionist doctrine, House Divided

does this to Lindsey when citing theone Greek error on page 53 of The Roadto Holo caust no less than three timesin three different contexts . Certainly,there is an error in Lindsey, but HouseDivided makes undue capital of it,making Lindsey look Jess competentthan actually warranted.

Also ironic is that Hous eivided, in an effort to illustrate the

fallacy of the Guilt By Associationtactic used by Hou se/Ice , must resort tothe same tactic in order to carica ture it

(this in sections entitled Taste ofTheir Own Medicine, pp . 54-58 and326-340). The irony proceeds from Dr .Bahnsen's observation (pg . 58) thatGuilt By Association accounts for justunder ten percen t of the entire effort putinto their book. And it is all for nothing. To expose this falla cy requiredHouse ivided to devote more than 6%of its content adducing additional guilty associa tions, following the lead (pg.

The Counsel of Chalcedon ·December 1989 • page 5

8/12/2019 1989 Issue 10 - House Divided: The Break Up of Dispensational Theology - Counsel of Chalcedon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1989-issue-10-house-divided-the-break-up-of-dispensational-theology-counsel 2/4

54) of Matthew 7:2, " ..and with themeasure you mete it out, i t shall bemeted out to you." Whereas House/Icem y have deserved tit for tat, the argumentation is forced to follow decidedlyunedifying lines (pg. 57 in particular),although the r esultant monstrosities are

not at all seriously meant" ibid.).The bulk of House Divided

undertakes to dismantle gross errors inthe House/I ce opus. I admit sadness atthe passing of one House/Ice myth: thatDr. Bahnsen read some ofRushdoony'sworks as a boy" (pg. 83, note 72). Theunderlying premise (that reading Rushdoony at a young age turns boys intoBahnsens) had primed me for acquiringadditional copies of Institutes for mythree boys pronto. But few of theHouse/Ice errors are quite so benign:characteristic of House and Ice is thefollowing fancy footwork exposed byDr . Gentry as regards David Chilton'shypothesis that premillennialism ori-ginated with Cerinthus the heretic.House and Ic e "state that the 'charge cannot in any way be supported,' that it is'pure fabrication' from Chilton, that'there are no records from church i s ~

tory' supportive of it, and that there isno 'historian outside of his own camp'who agrees with it. In all humility wemust _respond that this is nothing lessthan blatant, intentional falsehood, forin the same paragraph as Chilton's statement quoted by House and Ice, Chilton

provides source documentation fromh ~ hfather Eusebius to substantiate

his claim " House Divided, pg. 315).But look again: remember

Prov. 18:17? An examination ofDominion Theology, pp. 197-199,proves that the authors did interact ex-tensively with Chilton and his citationof Eusebius and Irenaeus They didn'tmisrepresent Chilton at all, neither didthey ignore his documentation. Moreover, House ivided cites Eusebius'Ecclesiastical History 3:28:1-2 at

length on pg. 315: "But Cerinthus also,by means of revelations which he pre-tends were written by a great apostle,brings before us marvelous things .•"The unwary reader may miss the factthat this quote asserts that the book ofR,evelation is a forgery written by Cerinthus. Not only is premillennialismunder attack in this quote, St. John'sApocalypse is, too There goes babywith the bath water

We feel Dr . Gentry's exasperation when he observes that "thedistortions rampant in the Reconstruction debate are terribly frustrating" (seepg. xlvii-lii), but i t is apparent thatdistortion isn't petpetrated only by "theother side." Whereas House Dividedidentifies many argumentation errors in

House and Ice, i t falls into a few ditches

as well. On page 270, Dr. Gentry answers The Charge of Arbitrary Exegesis," whereby House and Ice seekjustification for Reconstructionists allocating Matt. 24:1-34 to the destructionof Jerusalem and verses 35ff. to theSecond Coming. Dr . Gentry gives Jordan's reason for so dividing Matt. 24(note 62): "partly, because two completely different Greek words are used "House and Ice are chided for fully knowing Jordan's justification ibid, text andnotes 62-65) by virtue of comprehensive exposure to Reconstructionist arguments.

To this, Tommy Ice repliesthat adducing a shift in the Greek wordsemployed by Matthew is contravenedby the fact that parousia and erchomaiare used interchangeably prior to verse34: thus, he was Wlder no serious obligation to acknowledge Jordan's pointIn fact, pressing Jordan 's argumentwould entail abandoning theKik/Chilton hypothesis altogether .(This reviewer has long maintained thatLuke 17:34-37 forbids subdividing

Matthew 24 at its 34th verse: the Olivet Discourse apparently refers to ancient Jerusalem all the way up to Matt.25:30 , contra Kik et al Matt. 25 :3lff,paralleling Rev. 20:1lff, describes HisComing as synonymous with the endof the world and final judgment.)

Occasionally, House Divid edlets House and Ice slip away unchallenged. For example, in DominionTheology (pp . 225-226), it is arguedthat Matt 13:41-43 describes the removal of the unrighteous before the

[millennial] kingdom has begun. Comparison of verse 41 with 43 indicatestbat whereas the former treats of thekingdom of the Son, the latter dealsrather with the kingdom of the Father(clearly the eternal state as evidenced byI Cor . 15:24 28). While not everyHouse/Ice argument can be answered(for lack of space), surely those takenfrom the postmil stockpile of kingdomparables were worthy of critical ex-

The Counsel of Ch a lcedon ·Dece mber , 1989 • page 6

amination.The reader will find House

Divided to be most edifying in its discussion of logic and argurilentation.One quickly realizes that the caseerected against theortomy is often selfcontradictory (House and Ice are "doingnothing but tripping over themsel ves

- pg. 81). Example 1 : House and Ice

regard the theonomic intent of bringingthe Old Testament into the 20th centuryas being fraught with subjectivity andinherent danger, but the same objectioncan be made with respect to applyingthe ancient culture o f the New Testa-ment to the 20th century (pg. 30, rt.3). Example 2: House and Ice takerefuge in the Noahic Covenant as thelaw binding the nations today, but "the .Noahic revelation takes no account ofthe difference between accidental andpremeditated homicide ..we would beprevented from applying such a qualification in our courts today (pg. 129) .

Dr. House, queried about thisweakness in the Noahic Covenant, intimated that it embraced more than simply Gen esis Chapter Nine: it reachedback to Eden, and evidently containedthe commandments, statutes and lawsreferred to at Gen . 26 :5 and elsewhere.n other words, i t is a caricature to paint

pre-Mosaic divine law as intrinsicallysketchy. While this hypothesis has difficulties of its own (how then do weknow the unrecorded content of the lawsgiven to Noah, for ex llnple), it doesanswer Dr. Bahnsen in the narrow context of his criticism.

Elsewhere , "[o]ur imaginative authors have Reconstructionismsimultaneol.lSly .diminishing and in-creasing the antithesis betwe en Christianity and the world .." (see pg. 50-52). This reviewer found the House/Icewarning that pursuit of Biblical Law inour culture could lead to cultural backlash (note 17 in Hous e Divided, pg. 50,citing pg. 88 [sic] in Dominion

Theology) to be a remarkable echo ofthe Israeli leaders' complaint to Mosesupon being told they were now to makebricks without straw: "We have lost oursavor in Pharaoh's sight " When youact like Moses, expect to get treatedlike Moses.

Exegetically, Dr . Bahnsen 'sdiscussion of Ethics foilows t ~

contours o f his earlier works on thetopic of theonomy. I have but the

8/12/2019 1989 Issue 10 - House Divided: The Break Up of Dispensational Theology - Counsel of Chalcedon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1989-issue-10-house-divided-the-break-up-of-dispensational-theology-counsel 3/4

minutest objection to his handling ofMatthew 5:17-20, regarding the finalclause of verse 18 (pg. 108-109, n. 16).House/Ice treat till all be accomplishedas a precising clause to delimit themore general till heaven and earth passaway. Dr. Bahnsen regards till all beaccomplished as being far less specificand precise than till heaven and earthpass away which it is on his hypothesis that the clauses represent adouble protasis. But this is preciselythe critique leveled by exegete H.A.W.Meyer: the last clause would be avague and lumbering addition if coordinate with the ftrst. Contextually andlogically, it is subordinate. Meyer andWarfield, contra Dr. Bahnsen, regard theemphatically repeated undistributed on

as providing the natural correlative ofall : ONE jot or ONE tittle shall notpass till AU. be accomplished. InTheonomy Dr. Bahnsen critiquesMeyer's view as being tautologicalwhile his own exegesis supposedly isnot: but the exact opposite can be argued.)

But differing with Dr. Bahnsen doesn't entail accepting theHouse/Ice view, which is conditionedby their notion that Matt. 5:17 dealswith prophetic matters rather thanethical commandments. Dr. Bahnsendeftly dismantled this argument. both in

Theonomy and here in House Divided(pg. 105). If the tittles and jots thus

refer to God's commandments in theirexhaustive detail, what are we then tomake of Jesus' assertion that ONE jotor ONE tittle of the law shall not passaway till I L be accomplished?Simply put, the verse predicts that theLaw of God would one day be universally obeyed by all men on earth. This, ofcourse, presumes the conversion of theworld in its entirety (lest the greatestcommandment go unfulfilled or merelyfeigned). The clause is, as Warfieldnotes, an amazing prophecy asserting

that far from the being perpetuallyviolated, the Law of God would one daybe universally observed.

This steers us into the secondmajor section of House Divided concerning The Eschatological Question.This section, written by Dr. Gentry,dominates the book, and is an amazingtour-de-force in postmillennial exposition (doubtless enlivened by the need tointeract with the hostile perspectives of

the dispensational critics being analyzed). t could almost stand alone as avolume in itself (and probably should- it could be like a decaffeinatedversion of Chilton's Paradise Restoredi.e. without Interpretive MaxwellHouseism). The sustained, positive exposition of Scripture from a postmillennialperspective is clear, lucid, and compellingly argued. We need more of thiskind of writing.

Dr. Gentry goes further, interacting critically with House and Ice.One exchange provoked by faulty injection of anomalous details (speakingstatues, 3.5 years, etc.) in Matthew 24stands out on pg. 272: We agree witha statement [House/Ice] make elsewhere: There should not be a conflictbetween one's theology and the text.resulting in a fancy reworking of thetext to fit the proposed theology.' Inresponse to this quotation, we offer a(tongue-in-cheek) warning to the readerof House and Ice: 'All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observeand do; but do not ye after their works:for they say, and do not' (Matt. 23:3).

As of this date (Oct. 24,1989) Dr. House and Rev. Ice have notseen House Divided. Their commentsrecorded below are spontaneous and unconditioned by familiarity with Dr.Bahnsen's and Dr. Gentry's critique.

Tommy Ice: If we couldwrite the book again, we would change

it. We often overstated our case. Forexample, I would now say that there issome basis for a pre-70 A.D. composition date for Revelation, rather than nobasis. We also probably overstated thecase for the early Church's premillennialism, and linked it too heavily withfuturism. We committed some obviousfactual errors, and wrongly linked onPat Robertson.'' I asked Rev. Ice aboutthe presence of errors in logic inDominion Theology. There are probably hundreds of logical errors in the

book. Few can write as logicallyas

Bahnsen can. I was asked to write thebook by Multnomah Press. t wasn'tmy idea to write the book.'' I askedRev. Ice about his habit of putting theworst possible interpretation on hisopponent's position. I learned it fromthem [the Reconstructionists]. I had towork hard not to be sarcastic like GaryNorth - it's so easy to fall into [thatsnare]. He shares with me his shock at

15 major factual errors in the first chapter of Gary DeMar's The Debate overChristian Reconstruction alone: Whatam I to think when I read things likethat? Why the excess ive references tothe Manifest Sons of God cult and itsaffinity to certain Reconstruction distinctives? The charismatics know theManifest Sons of God, even if Refonned Christians don't. Charismaticscan easily fall prey to the cult [throughconfusion between it and Christian Re -construction]. What about dispensationalism's future? By the year 2000,Dallas Theological Seminary will nolonger be dispensational. [Professorial]priorities are elsewhere than the defenseof systematic dispensationalism fromexternal criticism.''

Dr. Wayne House: Therewas no conscious effort to distort[Reconstructionist ] teachings. The feedback we've gotten so far is thatDominion Theology gave a non-belligerent. fair representation. I hate thenegative tone of the current debate, because I consider the se guys my brothersin Christ Like Rev. Ice, Dr. Housedidn't want to co-author DominionTheology: I originally said no toMultnomah Press because I didn't havethe time, but I finally felt that somebody ought to respond to North'stirades.

Reviewer's Note: The candorand humility of Dr. House and Rev. Ice

in our conversations suggest that theissues could have been worked throughin a Christ-honoring, rather than a confrontational, framework. I had plannedto submit an essay for this issueentitled Workmen Ashamed critical ofHouse and Ice. I have decided to substitute The Rise o Promillennialismconcerning joint Christian action between brothers of disparate viewpoints.Case in point: on the Bill Moyer's Godin Politics special on Christian Reconstruction, the picketers on your TV

werenot

Reconstructionists: they wereDr. House's students from class #407.Likewise, Rev. Ice is presently awayfrom home serving as a Chaplain forthe National Guard. Despite the errorsthese men may have penned againstChristian Reconstruction as identifiedin Dr. Bahnsen and Dr. Gentry's HouseDivided it is equally clear that thesebrothers evince a total commitment to

(Continued on page 24)

The Counsel of Chalcedon • December 989 • page 7

8/12/2019 1989 Issue 10 - House Divided: The Break Up of Dispensational Theology - Counsel of Chalcedon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1989-issue-10-house-divided-the-break-up-of-dispensational-theology-counsel 4/4

House DividedContinued from page 7

their Christian responsibilities worthyof emulation . Needless to say, God willjudge us for our deeds more so than forour ideas .

Postscript: House Divided issubtitled The Breakup o DispensationalTheology. The premise may be truenow, but the tables were turned in theearly 20th century, when p r e m i l l e n ~

nialists could, with complete justice,have written Princeton .Divided : TheBreakup o Postmillennial Theology.The title House Divided was originatedby .. Dr. H . Wayne House himself Dr.North took dominion over the niiJile,and given his penchant for '"weenieroasts" at the "Bonfire o ~Faculties"House Divided pg . xl), probably ap-

pended the gleefully grim subtitle.Gone are the days when Dionysiuscould convert an entire regional churchaway from premillennialism with onlythree days of gentle, gracious, and persuasive discussion. 0

PromillennialismContinued from page 16

gives an exeenent definition .of the pro- millennialist: any Christian who"always abounding in the work of theLOrd." He knows his promillennialismisn't in vain, because Christ, as the onewho wields all power and authority,would never command His people toperform vanities and futilities. Thiseven extends to the command of 2 ·Cor.10:5: the call to take every thOughtcaptive to the obedience of Christ. Ef-forts here are not in vain either; our various views on prophecy have no bearing on our Lord's earnest promise. f

these Incentives weren 't eoough, Jesuseven added the promise that those whoare faithful in little things will be givenauthority over greater things ;.. · Promillennialism, then, is nothingmore than serious, full-orbed Christianity at its best: men of God hard at workfor the Lord of the harvest. The funnything is, two promillennialists, one premil and one postmil, have more in common with each other than with thosewho share their respective propbeticviewpoints but lack their desire to labor ·in the harvest. God doesn't just callously throw such "strange bedfellows" to-

gether to express His sense of humor.Rather, He is glorified in this. Thed i f f ~ e sbetween premils, amils, and

· posunjls pale in comparison to the i f ~

f e t e n ~ sbetween a :Ualotanda Tax Collector ·in 1st-century Israel: yet Christ

The Counsel of Chalcedon • DeCember, 1989 • page 24

on-Prqfit Org.U s.Postage

PAID ·BULK RATE

·Pennit No. t 553

made both Matthew and Simondisciples. We would do well t takeexample to heart, an i · to take up thetitle, promillennialists, for ourselveS;both with tongue-in-cheek: and sword-in-hand. 0