Thomas Ice
PREMILLENNIAL DISPENSATIONALIST
ANTI-PRETERIST DEBATER / AUTHOR

"many proponents of Preterism often rush from Partial Preterism to Full Preterism almost overnight"
(End Times Controversy, 66 Battle for the Future

"The history of biblical interpretation is against Ice's view. Is it any wonder that he fails to inform his readers that a majority of commentators stand against the dispensational interpretation of Matthew 24? If the grammatical-historical approach of interpretation is followed, there can be no other conclusion than that the gospel had been preached to the world of Jesus’ day before that generation passed away. For a point by point study of the arguments raised by Ice and a comprehensive study of how oikoumene is used in the New Testament, go to parts 2 and 3." (Gary DeMar)

Preterism and Zechariah 12-14 - T.I. | The Redemptive Context of Zechariah 12-14 - G.D. "But to assume that the time reference is to distant prophetic events is dispensational theologizing designated to protect a prophetic system."  | Thomas Ice and the Time Texts - G.D. "By never raising the issue of how the second person plural ("you") is used throughout Matthew 10, he is counting on his loyal readers not to notice. And who would think to go to Mark's account of the Transfiguration to see that the "disciples" is a larger group than Peter, James, and John? Of course, we all know the answer to this question: Preterists would. "Ice and LaHaye get off on the wrong foot in their analysis of Preterism. The historical argument is a death blow, or to use Mark Hitchcock's metaphor from his chapter on the dating of Revelation, "A Stake in the Heart" to their brand of futurism. The earliest historical sources, the Didache, the testimony of James, the brother of Jesus, and 1 Clement demonstrate that Preterism's history is a first-century history." | Ice/DeMar Debate on LeftBehind.com | On Thin Ice

"In an article published in the November 2002 issue of Midnight Call magazine, Thomas Ice presents the dispensational case that Matthew 24:14 was not fulfilled prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Tommy should be commended for finally doing what Preterists have been asking dispensationalists to do for quite some time--deal with Preterist arguments by actually interacting with Preterist published works and by comparing Scripture with Scripture. I would be willing to wager that Ice's analysis of Matthew 24:14 is the first time any dispensationalist has attempted to reconcile this passage with global-language passages which indicate that the gospel had been preached to the "whole world" before Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 (Col. 1:6, 23; Rom. 1:8; 16:25–26)."  "Few modern commentaries deal with Matthew 24:14 exegetically. It's as if Greek never existed. Fewer still even acknowledge that for centuries the view of nearly every pre-twentieth-century commentator applied the events of Matthew 24 to the time leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  Contrary to how modern commentaries handle Matthew 24:14 and its significance in determining the timing of prophetic events, older commentaries offer detailed discussions of the passage and show how it found proximate fulfillment in the first century prior to Jerusalem's destruction. What follows is merely a sample of how standard older commentaries, many still in print and used widely, interpreted Matthew 24:14." | The Global Proclamation of the Gospel - "The Preterist arguments for a first-century fulfillment of Matthew 24:14 are much less than compelling. Their insistence that oikoumene in Matthew 24:14 must refer to the ancient Roman Empire has no traction."

(On Preterism)
"What’s happening is that Preterism is challenging futurism. Idealism is not a factor out there and Historicism is not a factor. Preterists are rising up, coming mainly out of the Reconstructionist Movement, to do this. What is their theme verse? Does anybody know? Let’s all say it together, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled." So, when you talk to a Preterist, get ready to hear the words, "this generation" at least eight dozen times if you have an extended conversation.

We’ll have to have some Christian sociologists do an analysis of how frequently Preterists in an average hour discussion of Preterism say "this generation" and report back. That would be a good thing for the Christian Ed department to do. That way we could have some probability rates on these kinds of things." (The Conservative Theological Journal, 48, Volume 3, in an article entitled "The Destructive View of Preterism," pg 393)

(On Early Preterism)
"My Preterist friends have not been able to find any early Preterists in the early church. I would never say that there is no one in the early church who taught Preterism. . . Don't be foolish enough to say that nothing is out there in church history, because you never know. . . . There is early Preterism in people like Eusebius. In fact, his work The Proof of the Gospel is full of Preterism in relationship to the Olivet Discourse." ("Update on Pre-Darby Rapture Statements and Other Issues": audio tape December 1995).

(On the Early Date of Revelation)
"If Chilton and Russell’s view is correct, then a majority of the New Testament was not recognized as already fulfilled until recently. It was not until fifteen hundred years later that Chilton’s Preterist interpretation arose . . . When did the Preterist interpretation first arise in the history of the church? T he promulgation of this view ‘in anything like completeness’ was by a Spanish Jesuit of Antwerp, named Alcasar, in the beginning of the seventeenth century (1614)" (H&I p. 272).

(Matthew 24:34)
"While it is true that other uses of "this generation" refer to Christ's contemporaries, that is because they are historical texts.  The use of "this generation" in the Olivet Discourse in the fig tree passages are prophetic texts.  In fact, when one compares the historical use of "this generation" at the beginning of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 23:36 (which is an undisputed reference to A.D.70) with the prophetic use in 24:34, a contrast is obvious." [Ice and Gentry,  The Great Tribulation Past or Future (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 103-104.]

Josephus: There were soldiers and horsemen from Caesarea, from Syria, from the kings Antiochus, Agrippa, and Sohemus, and from Malchus, the king of Arabia (Josephus, Wars, 3:4:2; cp. 3:1:3).

(On Anathemas of Preterism)
"I want to close this debate by appealing to John [Noe] to repent of his error of misinterpretation of Scripture and come back into the fold of orthodoxy." ("Preterist vs. Futurist," Nov. 1999)

"EXTREME Preterists, or consistent Preterists, as they prefer to be known as, hold that all future Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. If there is a future second coming, they say, the Bible does not talk about it. Extreme Preterists believe that there is no future bodily resurrection, which place them outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy." (Has Bible Prophecy Been Fulfilled?)

(On Futurism vs Preterism)
"Until recently, futurism has enjoyed an unobstructed field.  Preterism, the polar opposite of futurism, has arisen at least to provide a challenge to the futurist dominance within evangelicalism.. The debate is shaping up as a showdown between Preterism and futurism." [Ice and Gentry,  The Great Tribulation Past or Future (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 6.]

(On Doctrinal Inconsistencies of Partial Preterism)
"How can Jordan, after taking the references to ‘coming’ in verses 1-35 as referring to Christ’s coming in judgment in A. D. 70, turn around and say that starting at verse 36 through the end of the chapter, it refers to the second coming. Either he is wrong about the first 35 verses, and they do refer to the second coming, or he should take verse 36 and following as a reference to the A. D. 70 destruction." (House and Ice, Dominion Theology, p. 298)

(On Jewish Supremacy)
"God will keep his original promises to the fathers and will one day convert and place Israel as the head of the nations." (House and Ice, Dominion Theology, p. 175.

(On Preterism)
"Both Dr. [Kenneth] Gentry and I believe that such a position is heretical, for it denies a bodily resurrection of believers and a future second coming of Christ."

First, in order to support the notion of an A.D. 70 fulfillment of the large number of details surrounding the tribulation, Preterists must use an unwarranted allegorical interpretative approach.

This means that passages such as Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 19:11 - 21, which have traditionally been interpreted as references to Christ's second coming, must somehow be understood to really represent Christ coming mysteriously through the Roman army which conquered Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Such an approach exceeds the legitimate hermeneutical disagreements over figurative versus normal use of figures of speech and commits the error of spiritualization by supplying a meaning not supported by textual interpretation.

Except for Luke 21:20 - 24, which clearly speaks of the A.D. 70 judgment upon Jerusalem, the rest of the passages picture Israel in a position from which God will deliver them from their enemies through His second coming. Even their allegorical approach to the biblical text cannot hide the clear fact that tribulation passages describe our Lord's salvation of Israel, not His judgment upon them. (From: the Pocket Prophecy Series, The Truth About The Tribulation; published by Harvest House)

Preterism-Eschatology---What are your thoughts on the matter?
Please fill in all fields marked with a *
	Article	Thomas Ice
	Name*
	Email Address*
	Comments*