Search This Blog

Sunday, 18 June 2017


      Thomas Ice - Protector of the shrinking Principality of Pretribulatia - believes that his "texas receptus" interpretation of II Thess. 2:3 is much better than that of his mentor, the late Dr. John Walvoord!
     Ice impudently states (in his widely noticed web article "The Rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3") that "I believe that there is a strong possibility that 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is speaking of the rapture," adding that "The fact that APOSTASIA [caps mine] most likely has the meaning of physical departure is a clear support for pretribulationism."
     In his book "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation" (p. 125) Walvoord writes:
     "E. Schuyler English and others have suggested that the word [apostasia] means literally 'departure' and refers to the rapture itself. Gundry argues at length against this interpretation, which would explicitly place the rapture before the day of the Lord, and his evidence is quite convincing. English is joined by the Greek scholar Kenneth S. Wuest but their view has not met with general acceptance by either pretribulationists or posttribulationists. A number of pretribulationists have interpreted the apostasy in this way as the departure of the church, but the evidence against this translation is impressive. In that case Gundry, seconded by Ladd, is probably right: the word refers to doctrinal defection of the special character that will be revealed in the day of the Lord [which "day" Walvoord views as "the great tribulation"]."
     So even though Dr. Robert Gundry's evidence "is quite convincing" and Ice's "has not met with general acceptance" and evidence against Ice's assertion "is impressive" and Gundry and Ladd are "probably right," Thomas Ice keeps beating his desperate dispensational drum in the ears of the Walvoord who was the No. 1 pretrib authority for many decades!
     Gundry's uber-great book "The Church and the Tribulation" (pp. 114-118) dismantles, piece by piece, the doctrinal defectors of II Thess. 2:3. For example, Gundry says that "it is from this least important source [classical Greek - in which "simple departure by no means predominates"] that English draws his argument."
     After English (followed by Ice) seeks support from Reformation-era Bible translations, Gundry points out that "the appeal to early English translations unwittingly reveals weakness, because in the era of those versions lexical studies in NT Greek were almost nonexistent and continued to be so for many years. The papyri had not yet been discovered, and the study of the LXX had hardly begun."
     Gundry adds: "In 2:1 Paul mentions 'our gathering' second in order to the Parousia. In light of the immediately preceding description of the posttribulational advent [II Thess. 1:7-10], it seems natural to regard the Parousia as a reference to that event rather than a sudden switch to a pretribulational Parousia unmentioned in the first chapter and unsupported in I Thessalonians. Several verses later (2:8) the Parousia again refers to the posttribulational advent of Christ."
     If the "falling away" (2:3) is the same (pretrib) rapture Ice sees in "gathering" (2:1), why did Paul use totally different Greek words ("episunagoges" and "apostasia") if he was discussing the very same event?
     A Google article ("Pretrib Rapture - Hidden Facts") reveals that pretrib rapturism historically has had more than two stages. Stage 1: In 1830 the "rapture" aspect of the second advent was stretched forward and became a separate coming. Stage 2: In the early 1900s various teachers stretched forward the "day of the Lord" (what Darby and Scofield never dared to do!). Stage 3: In recent times the "fact" involving "apostasia" has created "the-rapture-must-happen-before-the-rapture" fantasy which Ice etc. can hang on to with at least their eyelids!
     For more info about Ice, Google "Pretrib Rapture Pride," "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)," and "Be Careful in Polemics - Peripatetic Learning."  For 300 pages of uncovered and highly endorsed documentation on pretrib history, see my book "The Rapture Plot" which is available at Armageddon Books etc.
     Remember: Ice-colored statements can be as dangerous as ice-covered pavements!


Irv said...

Thanks for the additional light on the darkened minds of pretrib rapture soothsayers and money changers. I'm wondering how evil and dangerous the world events will have to become in order to finally slow down and even silence the pretrib desperados!

Treena Gisborn said...

I share your concerns Irv, though the false prophets, and that is what pre-trib teachers are, will not stop until it is too late I fear. God bless.

colin said...

This novel 'interpretation' of 2 Thess 2.3 shows how desperate some are to cling at any cost to unbiblical pre-trib doctrine! Even many Dispensationalists are honest enough to dismiss it!

The near 2000 year 'any-moment' rapture is going right down to the wire! so much so that it WILL happen at the Lord's Second Coming! (it is the SAME event). You would think these pre-trib 'theologians' would start "smelling the coffee"? But, no, they are a hardy lot, I should think Ice has the word "Rapture" painted on the lintel and door posts of his house!

But, really this is no laughing matter, believers ARE being deceived, this IS serious stuff.
God bless.

Irv said...

Colin, I love your sense of humor! Since pretribs buzz around our heads like a never-ending cloud of gnats, I think they should organize and become the Pretrib GNATsi Party! And we should always be equipped with at least a nice supply of bug spray! Seriously, I agree with you that "this is no laughing matter." And since parts of the UK and the midwest here in the US are now in serious heatwaves, maybe we should cool it when it comes to the in-our-face pretrib GNATS - cool it for at least five minutes! lol

colin said...

It is sometimes hard not to be humorous about some of what the pre-trib fraternity believe and teach.
I often look up Rapture Ready's latest articles, I have communicated with some of them over the years trying to alert them to see the error of their ways (as graciously as possible-of course!), but it seems that whatever you say, they cling to their precious theory. I think some people will believe what they want to believe, regardless?!
Only this morning I read a brief article recently posted by a Britt Gillete. As we know, these RR stalwarts would all have us believe that their Rapture could have happened at ANY time in the last 2000 years.

I quote;
"...we know to expect Jesus at any moment..."
He then goes on to say
"The Bible tells us what signs to look for. And Jesus Himself said when you see all these signs come together, you know His return is near...Israel is once again a nation (Isaiah 11.11-12). The Jewish people are back in Jerusalem (Luke 21.24)...These and other signs are out in the open for everyone to see. You can't miss them. For 1800+ years of Christianity, these signs didn't exist. Today, they do."

According to Mr Gillette, his Rapture couldn't have happened until at least 1948! Do these people actually read what they write?
In the same small article he chides the Pharisees (rightly so!) for not recognizing "the coming of the Messiah", yet he cannot recognize his own blindness!
God bless.

Irv said...

Amen (multiplied several times), Colin. You summed things up very well!