I read both of the Prophetic Issues by Tommy Ice that you sent me,  Bill. Thanks!   I met Tommy on two occasions. Very pleasant man to meet, but also very determined to defend dispensationalism against all other viewpoints. He tries to cover all the major prophetic conferences so as to "keep in touch."

I found his understanding of preterism to be very shallow. While he admits that the movement is growing rapidly (no doubt it frightens him!), he is not willing to come to grips with many of the essential issues of eschatology which are causing folks to become preterists day after day. For example, he still clings to the worn out old Scofield definition of imminency which says that no known event would intervene before a certain event COULD be fulfilled. Tommy apparently has no grasp of the basic idea of imminency which demands that fulfillment relates to the people to whom the N.T. letters are addressed. In other words, audience relevance.

It is interesting how he side-steps the Matthew 10:23 verse so as to connect it to the Olivet Discourse, which, he says, is still subject to a future fulfillment. He is unwilling to face up to the plain meaning of what Jesus said as He sent out the 70 disciples to the nation of Israel. Before they completed their task, He says, the Son of Man would come. Tommy just can't fathem this, or rather, he doesn't want to.

He is loaded with a barrel of futurist presuppositions which prevents him from viewing most of the prophetic portions fairly. He sees the persecution aspects of the Matt. 10:23 portion as demanding a yet future fulfillment, because they did not find fulfillment by the time of the Triumphal Entry. He does not allow for fulfillment in the period from A.D.30 to 70, just prior to the Second Coming at that time.

So there is nothing here that in any way threatens the preterist position. His arguments are without substance and exhibit very unsubstantive scholarship. Yet, what better arguments could any dispensationalist produce to counter the preterist view which improve on the arguments they have produced up to this time?

--Walt Hibbard