House Divided

Add a Comment

Comment by David Carraway on November 16, 2009 at 2:01pm

Anyone who may be browsing this group but has not yet purchased "House Divided" you may do so by visiting the link

http://pointsouth.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=ABS&Affiliate=bassolow

Comment by Ron on November 2, 2009 at 11:09am

Roadkill - ROFL!

Good one JP.

Comment by Chuck on November 2, 2009 at 10:33am

Tanya wrote: "Its content had the contrary effect to what our partial futurist friend's hope was when giving us that book!"

I think this is happening more than I realize. God uses all means to point us to the truth. All I can say is that you guys were really studious to have not been adversely affected by WSTTB. I presume many who read it were simply looking for a way to handle their cognitive dissonance. You apparently didn't read it with the intention of corroborating what you already believed but in fact were highly critical of the content. That's outstanding. I'm still reading HD and am doing everything in my power to be objective, which is difficult to do.

Your testimony is proof that truth can and will prevail even when it has been deliberately clouded. I needed to hear that.

Thanks Tanya!

Comment by Tanya on November 2, 2009 at 10:22am

My hubby & I have been reading House Divided. Its an EXCELLENT rebuttal to WSTTB!!!
I am so sadly embarrassed for the authors & supporters of WSTTB.
However, God used WSTTB's content to only drive us to fully embrace that Christ meant what He said. Its content had the contrary effect to what our partial futurist friend's hope was when giving us that book!

Comment by David Green on September 29, 2009 at 12:02am

Hi Robin, :)

The writer of Hebrews seems to allude to Leviticus 16 in Hebrews 9. Christ appeared once in the presence of God in the heavenly Holies. That first "appearance" of Christ was happening "now" when Hebrews was written. He was about to appear a second time (in the near future when Hebrews was written) to those who were anxiously waiting for Him to re-appear. That is when He manifested (or opened up) "the way of the Holies" to His people.

" . . . the way of the [heavenly] Holies has not yet been made manifest, the first tabernacle [the old covenant world] still having standing" (Heb. 9:8).

"Christ is . . . entered into . . . [the heavenly Holies], now to appear in the presence of God for us. . . . Now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. . . . and unto them that look for him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation" (Heb. 9:24, 26, 28).

Dave :)

Comment by MoGrace2u on September 28, 2009 at 11:17pm

I think Lev 16 gives a fuller picture of what the Lord accomplished when He entered the holy of holies. The offering of blood by the priest, the change of clothes, etc., all to prepare it for us to enter. The cross was when the veil was torn. And even though the manifestation of that truth was not fully made known until the temple came down, it was nevertheless accomplished at that time. Jesus made His visible appearance to the disciples when He was raised from the dead - that showed His sacrifice had been accepted. I believe that His ascension to the Father occurred sometime that same day - else how could appear later in the upper room and commission the disciples with the authority of the kingdom He had received? (Mat 28:18) Physical manifestations were for the testimony of the eyewitnesses. There is nothing in that that prevents the spiritual things from being accomplished that were not witnessed.

Comment by David Green on September 28, 2009 at 10:33pm

Only one small glitch so far on page 35 about Jesus' return in 70AD being the antitype for the high priest coming out of the holy of holies on the day of atonement. (Lev 23) The resurrection fulfilled that type - not 70AD.

Hi Robin,

Can you please elaborate on that?

Dave :)

Comment by MoGrace2u on September 28, 2009 at 10:25pm

I got my 2 copies today (thanks Mike for the extra!) and have gone thru the intro and 1st 2 chapters by David Green. I can't remember when I have read something more clear without having to sift thru the common rhetoric you often find in a critique. If I were Mathison (et al), I would be wishing I had never written that book! It seems many want to rush to the publisher these days... but this book doesn't reflect that at all, it is careful and well thought out.

Only one small glitch so far on page 35 about Jesus' return in 70AD being the antitype for the high priest coming out of the holy of holies on the day of atonement. (Lev 23) The resurrection fulfilled that type - not 70AD.

Comment by Chuck on September 27, 2009 at 11:10pm

Dave, I apologize to you guys for being such a slow reader. I bought 10 copies from Sam when House Divided first came out and have attempted to be meticulous in my reading. Unfortunately snails travel faster than I read. I look up every cited verse.

Mike was hoping for a review (the more the merrier) but until I'm done (I've been reading every chapter twice partially because I'm dense), I really can only comment on bits and pieces. As I've already made clear, if a hyper-creedalist like Gentry took the time to consider your arguments in the first 2 chapters, I'd have to believe that comprehensive embarrassment would be an involuntary reaction. So far I'm more than impressed with House Divided. It's far more comprehensive than I imagined.

Of course I'm to a degree biased, but contrary to these naysayers who have no clue of the preterist heart, they don't realize that most of us could care less about preterism...I'd forsake it in a minute if I determined that another eschatological system was more accurate. They think preterism is some sort of end game, when in reality to me it's the result of being a faithful Berean. Knowing the Eck-like reaction, who in their right mind would choose to be a preterist unless they really believed it? As if it's a ball of fun being a damnable heretic.

With regard to their inconsistency, Mike S. writes, "This is why partial preterism gains a following for a short period of time and then end up coming to "hyper-preterism" for a more consistent and exegetical approach that is in harmony with the analogy of Scripture.

Comment by David Green on September 27, 2009 at 9:35pm

Hi Chuck, :)

If any of those guys have read House Divided, I'll bet they're praying that nobody reads Mike's chapter. I can't even read that chapter without cringing in embarrassment for Mathison et al. The contradictions that Mike uncovered between "Mathison #1" and "Mathison #2" are so stunning that I actually have hope that Mathison could change his position, at least to some extent, after reading Mike's chapter. It's hard for me to imagine anyone not changing something after being publically confronted with so many undeniable self-contradictions.

Dave

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last