The subtitle of "The End Times Controversy" is "The Second Coming Under Attack," indicative of the editors and various authors' mindset toward Preterism, which -- contrary to the subtitle's charge -- affirms the historical space-time reality of Jesus' Second Coming.  (The distinction between Partial and Full Preterism is not at issue here, because the LaHaye-Ice book considers both forms of Preterism to be wrong, as well as borderline or outright heresies.)  Given that Preterists affirm the reality of the Second Coming, the book's subtitle is not only unfair and misleading, but ironic, as LaHaye and Ice -- who subscribe to a particular brand of Futurism known as Dispensationalism -- actually believe in two future comings of Christ.

According to Dispensationalism, whose teachings were popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible (originally published in 1909), Christ will first come FOR his saints at the Rapture, which is a non-public, invisible-to-earth event that supposedly takes place seven years earlier than the "real" Second Coming.  After the in-the-air Rapture of the Church, those left behind face a seven-year Great Tribulation that will end when Christ comes back WITH his saints at the "real" Second Coming.  This second Second Coming -- which would qualify as a Third Coming using traditional math --  is known by Dispensationalists as the Glorious Appearing or Revelation.  So a fairer, more accurate subtitle for the new LaHaye-Ice book, given their Dispensational perspective, would be "THE TWO FUTURE SECOND COMINGS UNDER ATTACK."  But that, of course, would be a rather embarrassing subtitle for a book that purports to teach orthodox Christian doctrine.

The anti-Preterist "End Times Controversy" gets off to a shaky start in LaHaye's introduction.  The introduction cites passages from the New Testament that supposedly depict the Second Coming (meaning, in this case, the "real" one or "Glorious Appearing") as an event that involves Christ's bodily descent from heaven until his feet touch earth.  (This touching down, it should be noted, is a necessity for Dispensationalism, which holds to the "Premillennial" doctrine that Christ will establish a 1,000-year Messianic kingdom on earth.)  The first New Testament passage cited by LaHaye, and the strongest one for his case, is Acts 1:11, where two angels tell the apostles (who had just witnessed Jesus' ascension and disappearance into a cloud): "...this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven" (King James Version).  LaHaye writes that the angels' promise to the disciples "must refer to a physical, literal return of the Savior to this earth." (p. 9)

But a "physical, literal return" of Jesus does not require his touching down on earth.  Dispensationalism implicitly recognizes as much in its version of the Rapture, which -- though artificially separated from the "real" Second Coming -- is nevertheless viewed by Dispensationalists as an event in which Christ physically and literally comes for his raptured saints, who are to be caught up in the clouds to meet him in the air.

So a "physical, literal" return of Christ is not the real issue in determining how Jesus fulfills Acts 1:11, but whether such a return necessarily results in his full descent "to this earth," as LaHaye insists. If there were no other New Testament passages that shed light on the manner of Christ's Second Coming, then Acts 1:11 could be construed as an earth-landing descent, which is why, as mentioned earlier, this verse represents the best case Futurism (and thus Dispensationalism) can make for a still-to-come return of Christ.  But the Apostle Paul's account of Jesus' coming in 1st Thessalonians 4:15-17, which describes Christ as descending to meet his saints in the air but not as proceeding down to earth, corresponds so closely in detail with Acts 1:11 that Paul's words must be considered the authoritative interpretation of the angels' less specific description of Jesus' return in Acts 1:11.

In that verse from Acts, the angels -- speaking after Christ has ascended in a cloud from the Mount of Olives -- tell the apostles that he will return "in like manner" (Greek: "hon tropon") as his ascent.  The Greek words hon tropon, as used elsewhere in the New Testament (Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:34, Acts 7:28, 2nd Timothy 3:8), show that the actions being compared are generally alike, though not identical.  So the return of Jesus should correspond in key ways with his ascension.  That being the case, considering the following parallels:

In Acts 1:9, Jesus' ascends to heaven

In 1st Thessalonians 4:15, Jesus makes a reverse ascension by descending from heaven

In Acts 1:9, Jesus is borne by a cloud in making his ascent

In 1st Thessalonians 4:17, Jesus meets his saints "in the clouds"

Thus, there is sufficient correspondence between these two passages to regard Paul's account as the more specific description of what the angels mean in Acts 1:11, where they tell the apostles that Jesus will return "in like manner" ("hon tropon") as his ascension.  And since the Apostle does not depict Jesus as descending any further than a meeting point with his saints somewhere "in the air" (1st Thessalonians 4:17), there is no warrant for LaHaye's insistence that the description of Christ's "physical, literal return" in Acts 1:11 requires his full descent "to this earth."

In his introduction to "End Times Controversy," LaHaye points to other New Testament passages that he claims depict the Second Coming as an event requiring Christ's visible earth-landing descent.  But after citing Acts 1:11, his case goes downhill fast.  He cites Matthew 24:27-30 from Christ's apocalyptic discourse on the Mount of Olives, where Jesus says "all the tribes of the earth" will mourn when they "see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with great power and glory" (King James Version).  But this passage is part of Jesus' prophecy in which he says "this generation [Greek: "genea"] shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matthew 24:34, KJV).  Given that the word "genea" is consistently used throughout the Gospels to mean the generation alive at the time -- meaning Jesus' own contemporaries -- the Son of Man's coming in Matthew 24:27-30 calls for a 1st-century fulfillment.  This undermines LaHaye's argument that this passage refers to a still-to-come return of Christ.

LaHaye then cites Revelation 1:7, where John writes that Christ "is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him" (New International Version).  This verse, however, poses a major challenge to LaHaye, as it records that "even those who pierced" (crucified) Jesus will see him at his coming, which again places Jesus' return in the 1st century.  How does LaHaye get around this straightforward reading of Revelation 1:7?  He writes: "All men will see the Lord Jesus Christ at His coming -- those in heaven, those on earth, and evidently, even those under the earth 'who pierced Him.'" (p. 9)  LaHaye's comment that Christ's dead ("under the earth") crucifiers would "evidently" see him at his supposedly still-future coming is an attempt to solve the dilemma, but LaHaye offers no basis for his speculation.

Going downhill even more quickly, LaHaye then cites Revelation 19:11-16, in which a horseman (Christ) -- who is "dressed in a robe dipped in blood," has eyes of "blazing fire," crowns on his head, and a "sharp sword" in his mouth -- rides a white horse, followed by the "armies of heaven," to judge, make war on, and rule the nations.  LaHaye, in a remarkable non sequitur, quotes this passage from Revelation and then comments: "How could the Bible possibly be any clearer?  When Jesus returns to this earth, He will come physically to set up His long-promised kingdom."  (p. 9)  Revelation 19:11-16, apart from its obvious symbolic imagery (such as the sword in Christ's mouth, which virtually all commentators regard to be the powerful word of God), does not contain a single word about Christ landing "on earth."  LaHaye sees something that is not there.  It should be noted that another difficulty in this passage for LaHaye and his fellow Dispensationalists, who claim to interpret the Bible literally, is that Christ is portrayed here as riding back toward earth on a white horse. But Jesus did not ascend to heaven on a white horse from the Mount of Olives, even though the angels told the apostles that Christ would return "in like manner" (Acts 1:11) as he ascended.

LaHaye finally reaches the bottom of the hill when he cites 2nd Thessalonians 2:8 as evidence for Jesus' physical return to earth.  That verse reads: "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming" (King James Version).  LaHaye argues: "It should be obvious that for Christ to destroy Satan, who will be standing in the temple and blaspheming God, Christ will have to appear physically."  (p. 10)  Setting aside the fact that the one who takes his seat in the temple to challenge God is the "man of lawlessness" (2nd Thessalonians 2:3) -- not Satan -- LaHaye's insistence that Christ must "appear physically" to destroy him places a strangely artificial limit on Christ's divine power.