The Great Tribulation--Past or Future?: Two Evangelicals Debate the Question

by Thomas Ice

This engaging book brings together the opposing viewpoints of two respected evangelicals on whether the Great Tribulation is a past, present, or future event. This material is especially helpful in gaining an understanding of end times as the arguments are presented in a friendly debate format with responses by each author to the other's position.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0825429013
• ISBN13: 9780825429019
• Release Date: May 1999
• Publisher: Kregel Academic & Professional
• Length: 224 Pages
• Weight: 0.64 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.5" x 5.4" x 8.6"

Customer Reviews

Why Thomas Ice? Gentry superb!

Immediately when I glanced at the two interlocutors in this debate-book, I knew it would be one sided. Thomas Ice (with all due respect) is just not up to par with Gentry's scholarship. Ice's comparison to Zechariah 14, would have to be his strongest argument in this book. There really is not much else to Ice's contribution. For Matthew 24:34, Ice simply gives alternative ways this "unambiguous, non-apocalyptic, non-poetic didactic assertion" may be interpreted but does not deal with the obvious (Gentry's) interpretation. By circumventing the semantic feildery of the phrase "this generation shall not pass away..." Ice really believes he has accomplished something. In Ice's initial argument, Matthew 24 is not even dealt with (the topic of debate). Ice, jumps to the OT (which is not wrong as a backdrop, but when the subject is the "great tribulation" you should focus on the great tribulation). Thomas Ice is a bit better, in criticizing Gentry's exposition on "The Great Tribulation" in his rebuttal; however it is not nearly strong enough to over turn Kenneth Gentry's precision. The ridiculous gap that Thomas Ice argues for between Matthew/Mark and Luke is quite pathetic. He argues that Luke's account of the Olivet discourse was fulfilled in A.D. 70 while Matthew and Mark are still future. Ice does this by appealing at a couple of differences in word usages by the three gospel accounts. It is quite sad that Thomas Ice zeros in on trivialities and deems this scholarship, there is another name for it; pedantry. Just visit your local Christian bookstore and grab a copy of any harmonious gospels, and Ice's argument immediately becomes moot! So then, my question is why was Thomas Ice chosen to represent the futurist view? There are many other notable scholars that would have made an formidable debatee for Dr. Gentry: G.K. Beale, Robert Thomas, David Turner, Robert Saucy, Richard Gaffin, Robert Strimple, etc... Kenneth Gentry on the other hand is at his best... As usual Gentry is well presented and easily comprehended. Gentry, lays down some preliminary guidelines, before he tramples into Matthew 24. Really impressive is the historical context in which Gentry places the entire discourse. I will tell you, I have yet to see anyone as persuasive as this man in eschatology. Gentry is defiantly championed as the pinnacle of eschatological scholars. After reading this and the strength of Dr. Gentry's argument, you will be amazed and wish to further read the rest of Dr. Gentry's work. Unfortunately Dr. Gentry's rebuttal in this book is not too informative due to Thomas Ice's inadequacy to effectively present his case. Dr. Gentry is forced to way through much of the futurist jargon, that Ice disperses in his opening argument. Furthermore, Gentry is forced to begin analyzing childish objections like discontinuity between the 3 accounts of the Olivet discourse in the gospels (although Luke contains the same time delimiter "this generation" (v.32) Ice still presses

Well done

Most of what can be said, has been said. A good book for those interested in actually learning about differing views, and not simply clutching tightly to a familar system. That said, I find it terribly interesting that when looking at the list of "People who have purchased this book, have also purchased:" of all the books listed only one is a Futurist book, while all the rest are of the preterist or partial pret persuasion. : ) One final note: It is also interesting that the poorest review so far (3/5 stars) does not actually mention anything really about the book but simply attempts to defend futurism. Besides offering a defense that is of no worth whatsoever, the people reading reviews, attempting to make a decision are given nothing. I submit that the author of that review may not have read the most engaging works of preterists, and others who are not persuaded of the Futurist view.

An excellent presentation of the subject

Regardless of your current thoughts on the subject, this book will help you tie together any loose ends. It represents a very clear and easily-readable presentation of two opposite views of eschatology: futurism (dispensationalism) and preterism. Like most evangelical Christians today, I grew up learning and teaching dispensationalism. Many studies in Daniel meant I had the images and calculations down pat. However, there was a nagging doubt involved in stretching the 70th week out for over two thousand years. Suddenly -- and recently -- everything is falling into place. If you are unfamiliar with any other view of the end times, do yourself a favour and get a copy of this book. Both sides are very clearly presented. Read them and make up your own mind.

Ice should have stayed home that day!

This was a very insightful book. Thomas Ice and Kenneth Gentry debate the question: "Was the Great Tribulation in the first century? Or is it still in our future?"Gentry argues that Jesus said it would be in "this generation" in which he lived (Matt. 24:34). Ice argues (somehow) that Jesus was saying: "It will occur in the future and that Jesus' statement 'this generation' really refers to a generation 2000 or more years away."I really believe Thomas Ice should have stayed in bed the day he engaged this debate. Gentry points out numerous problems with Ice's wandering approach to Scripture. He notes that Ice deals very little with the text which actually has the phrase "the great tribulation" in it! Why does he wander off into other texts rather than focus on Matthew 24? Gentry keeps a keen focus on Matthew 24, noting its historical setting in the first century (while the temple and Jerusalem were still standing) and its literary setting in Matthew itself (Matthew frequently warns about coming judgment on the first century people who reject and crucify Christ). There is no reason to project this prophecy way into the future (Matt. 23:36 and 24:34).Gentry wins the debate hands down.

A Remembrance of Things Past

The recent flurry of books containing debates in print is welcome, and refreshing. Nothing gives the reader a better introduction to a controversial subject than two scholars hashing it out under one cover. With the phenomenal success of the Jerry Jenkins/ Tim LaHaye prophecy novels, a layman-friendly defense of preterism is long overdue. (Preterism is the belief that much--NOT ALL--of Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation was fulfilled in AD 70.) Dr. Kenneth Gentry is one of the most eloquent and intelligent proponents of preterism currently publishing. Dr. Tommy Ice is a well-known dispensational author and speaker. Dr. Gentry carefully and persuasively makes a water tight case for preterism, leaving Dr. Ice to melt in a puddle of twisted Scripture, illogic, and unfounded supposition. Dispensational theology, with its harmful hermenutic and execrable eschatology, has dominated the thinking of the church for far too long. If you want to see why Hal Lindsey and company are constantly scrambling for credibility, read the first half of this book (Dr. Gentry's contribution.) If you still aren't convinced that LaHaye and Jenkins are publishing gross error, you weren't paying attention.