Apr 252010

3CardMonte-759799“We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel ‘as the institution for the administration of divine blessings to the world.’” Thomas Ice, “The Israel of God


1.to replace in power, authority, effectiveness, acceptance, use, etc., as by another person or thing.

2.to set aside or cause to be set aside as void, useless, or obsolete, usually in favor of something mentioned; make obsolete: They superseded the old statute with a new one.

1. See replace. 2. void, overrule, annul, revoke, rescind.  (found at Dictionary.com)

I’ll reproduce some of the Ice article here just to show a point.

What is Replacement Theology?

Preterist and covenant theologian, Kenneth Gentry defines replacement theology- to which he holds- as follows: ” We believe that the international Church has superseded for all times national Israel as the institution for the administration of divine blessing to the world.” [1] Gentry uses supersession as a synonym for replacement. I could almost agree with his definition if he would remove the phrase ” all times.” We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel ” as the institution for the administration of divine blessing to the world.

Gentry adds to his initial statement the following embellishment:

That is, we believe that in the unfolding of the plan of God in history, the Christian Church is the very fruition of the redemptive purpose of God. As such, the multi-racial, international Church of Jesus Christ supersedes racial, national Israel as the focus of the kingdom of God. Indeed, we believe that the Church becomes ” the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), the ” seed of Abraham” (Gal. 3:29), ” the circumcision” (Phil. 3:3), the ” temple of God” (Eph. 2:19-22), and so forth. We believe that Jew and Gentile are eternally merged into a ” new man” in the Church of Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:12- 18). What God hath joined together let no man put asunder![2]

[1] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., ” Supersessional Orthodoxy; Zionistic Sadism,” Dispensationalism in Transition, Vol. VI, No. 2; Feb. 1993, p. 1.

[2] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., ” The Iceman Cometh! Moronism Reigneth!,” Dispensationalism in Transition, Vol. VI, No. 1; Jan. 1993, p. 1.

Ice is either ignorant or dishonest here within two paragraphs.  These quotes are given by Ice in the reverse order in which they were given by Gentry.  No big deal?  Notice after the first quote Ice says, “Gentry uses supersession as a synonym for replacement.”  Yet if you read the second quote (which is Gentry’s first statement) you will find out exactly what Gentry means by “superseded” in the first paragraph, containing Gentry’s second statement.

Confusing?  Okay lets look and Gentry’s two statements only, lets put them in order.

1.  “We believe that Jew and Gentile are eternally merged into a ” new man” in the Church of Jesus Christ.  What God hath joined together let no man put asunder!” Jan. 93′

2.  “We believe that the international Church has superseded for all times national Israel as the institution for the administration of divine blessing to the world.”  Feb. 93′

If you were asking what “supersede” means to Gentry in the second statement; why wouldn’t you go to the first?  From the writings of Gentry, in the first article titled “Supersessional Orthodoxy; Zionistic Sadism,” you should notice two things.  First, Gentry doesn’t, “define replacement theology- to which he holds- as follows:….,” as Ice says he does.  Gentry is defining what he calls “supersessionism.”  Second, he explains it right here in the quote used by Ice!  Gentry would not use “superseded” as a synonym for replace!  He in fact used it clearly, as a synonym for “merged into a ‘new man’.”  It doesn’t take much of an English expert to know that “merging” is not “replacing.”

Now, if you are looking for a definition for a term an opponent is using, you should ask.  If you’re reading an opponent and a definition is given then you don’t need to ask.  If you then define a term differently than your opponent has already defined it, you are Equivocating!  I don’t think Ice is ignorant by the way, I think he knew exactly what he was doing.  Notice that, even though Ice places the quotes backward, he says, “Gentry adds to his initial statement the following embellishment:”  Now that’s strange.  Ice knows which statement Gentry made first.  He cited them in the footnotes, dates included.  Ice essentially says that Gentry’s first quote was an “embellishment” on something he hadn’t even written yet!  Note also, that Ice calls what is actually the second statement “his initial statement.”  Is Ice this stupid?  I think not.

Should Gentry have used a different word than “superseded?”  Probably, because he did not intend its normal usage as you can see from his original statement.  But for Ice to force Ice’s chosen (and accurate) definition of “superseded” on Gentry’s statements where he (Gentry) clearly defines what he means is just plain political dishonesty.

Also, Kenneth Gentry would not call himself a Preterist or a Replacement Theologian.  Only Ice would, in an attempt to Poison the Well with Weasel Words.

And finally, although Gentry would not use “supersede” as a synonym for “replace.”  Thomas Ice certainly did just that, clearly and strait-forwardly in the quote from the beginning of this article.  Check it out in full context if you like.  So I ask:  Who is the Replacement Theologian of these two?

  • [Hi Curtis: I just spotted this incredible article on the web. Any reaction? Lord bless.]

    Pretrib Rapture Pride

    by Bruce Rockwell

    Pretrib rapture promoters like Thomas Ice give the impression that they
    know more than the early Church Fathers, the Reformers, the greatest
    Greek New Testament scholars including those who produced the KJV Bible,
    the founders of their favorite Bible schools, and even their own
    Ice knows that his own mentor, Dallas Sem. president
    John Walvoord, was unable to find anyone holding to pretrib before early
    19th century British teacher John Darby – and Walvoord called Darby and
    his Brethren followers “the early pretribulationists” (RQ, pp. 160-62).
    By claiming to find “imminence” in the 1st and 2nd century Fathers, Ice
    knows that his followers can change “imminence” in their mind to
    “pretrib” – but Ice is reluctant to admit that whenever any of those
    Fathers seemed to hold to “imminence, it was because they thought they
    were then in the tribulation and were near the end of it!
    “Famous Rapture Watchers” to see the rapture view that Walvoord said
    “has long been a common doctrine held by the majority of the church”
    (RQ, p. 127). Note how those unsurpassed lexicon and Greek grammar
    experts interpreted Rev. 3:10 which pretrib promoters often claim is the
    greatest Biblical proof for an any-moment pretrib rapture.

    Journalist/historian Dave MacPherson has focused since 1968 on the
    pretrib rapture’s long-covered-up, 183-year-old history. His habit has
    been to examine Darby’s earliest writings and then painstakingly search
    for the earliest occurrences of certain words and phrases like “coming
    for,” “coming with,” “rapture,” “imminence,” “any moment,” etc. Since
    several of Darby’s contemporaries have at times been nominated for the
    title of “Pretrib Rapture Originator,” MacPherson has done the same
    laborious word-and-phrase search in the earliest writings of Macdonald,
    Norton, Irving, etc.
    Since many pretrib promoters favor the King
    James Version of the Bible, it’s interesting that the other writings of
    the KJV translators that are in the British Library in London (where
    MacPherson has researched) don’t have even a hint of a pretrib rapture!
    Is it possible that Ice and other pretrib merchandisers have found proof
    of pretrib in the KJV that even the KJV translators couldn’t find?

    Pretrib didn’t flourish in America much before the 1909 Scofield Bible
    which has pretribby “explanatory notes” in its margins. Not seen in the
    margins was jailed forger Scofield’s criminal record throughout his life
    that David Lutzweiler has documented in his recent book “The Praise of
    Folly” which is available online.
    Even some well-known
    evangelical schools have played fast and loose with pretrib.
    MacPherson’s “The Rapture Plot” – the most documented and accurate work
    on pretrib dispensationalism’s history (Google “Scholars Weigh My
    Research”) – includes on p. 222 Biola’s original doctrinal statement
    which stated that the “Lord Jesus is coming again to his earth,
    personally, bodily, and visibly.” Later on, those who evidently felt
    superior to the founders added this Scofield-like “explanatory note”
    which says that “the return of the Lord for His Church will be
    premillennial” and “before the Tribulation.” (Also Google “Pretrib
    Although Ice’s mentor John Walvoord couldn’t find
    any pretrib teacher before 1830, Ice has been “honoring” Walvoord by
    promoting some pseudo-scholars who claim they’ve found pre-1830
    existence of pretrib! (Google MacPherson’s “Deceiving and Being
    Deceived” for the details.)
    Ice, BTW, has a “Ph.D” issued by a
    tiny Texas school that wasn’t authorized to issue degrees! Ice now says
    that he’s working on another “Ph.D” via the University of Wales in
    Britain. For light on the degrees of Ice’s scholarliness, Google “Bogus
    degree scandal prompts calls to wind up University of Wales,” “Thomas
    Ice (Bloopers),” and “be careful in polemics – Peripatetic Learning.”

    Another pretrib trafficker, Hal Lindsey, asserts on p. 124 in “The Late
    Great Planet Earth” that the famous Egyptian Sphinx has the head of a
    woman even though encyclopedias say it’s the head of a man!
    In a
    Google article “Pretrib Expert John Walvoord Melts Ice,” Ice’s mentor
    demolishes Ice’s desperate assertion that the “falling away” in II
    Thess. 2 is a pretrib rapture! (Ice should have said that the TEACHING
    of such a rapture is a falling away!)
    Other Google pieces
    helping to make a shocking mosaic of pretrib include “Pretrib Rapture
    Diehards,” “X-raying Margaret,” “Edward Irving is Unnerving,” “Wily
    Jeffrey,” “Thieves’ Marketing,” “Appendix F: Thou Shalt Not Steal,” “The
    Unoriginal John Darby,” “Catholics Did NOT Invent the Rapture,” “The
    Real Manuel Lacunza,” “The Rapture Index (Mad Theology),” “Open Letter
    to Todd Strandberg,” “Pretrib Rapture: A Staged Event,” “Pretrib Rapture
    Secrecy,” “Roots of Warlike Christian Zionism,” “Chuck Missler –
    Copyist,” “Pretrib Rapture Secrets,” and an earthquake titled “Pretrib
    Rapture Dishonesty.”
    Can anyone guess who the last proud pretrib rapture holdout will be?

    • I do not believe that it is ‘pre-trib’ that is the new thing. Dispensationalism is the new thing, which includes pre, mid and post tribulational views. I have been familiar with MacPherson for over a decade. He does a wonderful job of discovering the origins of dispensationalism yet still holds to one of it’s varieties. Don’t you find that strange?