Ice, Thomas
(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).
"if there were some validity to the early date, some trace of this competing tradition should have surfaced. However, it has not" (House and Ice, Dominion Theology, pp. 253-54)
(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.]
"One major reason Matthew 24 could not have been fulfilled in A.D. 70 is that ‘the abomination of desolation’ (24:15) was not accomplished in the destruction of Jerusalem." Ibid., p. 290.
(On Luke 21:28)
"They see it as reflective of Zechariah 12-14, where Jerusalem is surround by the nations: This passage, they say, “fits very well into the language of Matthew 24 — the nations have surrounded Jerusalem. It does not fit the A. D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem, since that was accomplished by one nation - Rome. . . .It would also be difficult to see how a single nation would fit this passage even if hyperbole were used." (House and Ice, Dominion Theology, p. 291.)
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)
[ Go Back ]
Planetpreterist.com Copyright © by Planet Preterist - (1515 Reads) |
