In general, whole life policies are not advantageous except in the case where you have tremendous wealth - as in multiple millions of dollars - and are using insurance as a way to circumvent estate taxes. Since you have a house down-payment savings account, I'm assuming that your wealth isn't on this order of magnitude.
I tend to be in the "don't 'invest $' with insurance companies" camp. Source: I earned a CFP certificate in 2008. I am not currently a CFP professional, as I stopped paying dues in 2010 (I used the knowledge for my own personal use). But I studied insurance fairly thoroughly for that exam, and I don't believe the industry has fundamentally changed since then. Here are my thoughts:
If your parents have been paying $152.35 a year, then they've earned roughly 1.7% on their money over 29 years for a current cash value of 5800.
I'm assuming you are 29 years old. You should be able to get a 30 year term, $100k death benefit for $10/mo(Female)$13/month(Male) or $120-$156/year - for 2.5 times the death benefit. Of course, this means the benefit will end after 30 years, whereas whole life insurance is for your whole life.
After 30 years, if you are able to return 6.6% on that 5800, you would have a balance roughly equivalent to the death benefit of the whole life policy... but you'll have the $ at age 59, well before death. Your 30 year term would expire at that time, but hey, you'll have $39k.
So, personally, I'd take the cash, invest it, and buy the cheapest basic term policy I could find, with no investment component. Now - this is assuming you have dependents who would be screwed financially if you died, or it assumes you will have such dependents in the future. Locking in this low policy premium at 29 could be a wise move. If you don't foresee having such dependents, then there's little need for term insurance, or consider getting a $50k policy if you can.
This is a good article about comparing whole life to term.
Good luck.