I am here today to make a public statement.  This has been weighing on my mind for weeks now and while I thought I could continue to post here as a futurist, I can’t.  I am not one who is comfortable pretending to be something I’m not.  That’s why I affirmed to Duncan that if I changed positions, I would announce it. 

When I knew I was going to be posting here again, I seriously considered using an alias and had actually constructed one when Ed H posted about those who do that and it caused me to reconsider my actions.  Thank you, Ed.  He was right.  I would have been building a web of deception that would have served to tarnish whatever I accomplished going forward, so I elected to work in the light of day.  

I could have taken the route of just withdrawing slowly from the community and no one would ever know but I can’t do that either.  While the thought crossed my mind, it was never a consideration.   I owe the full preterist community an apology for things I have written against it and said.  To speak out at the time I did without fully reconciling the texts was very irresponsible and I do hope the community can forgive me for doing that.  I have great remorse over those statements.   I do plan on setting the record straight going forward and this is the first installment.

I really appreciate that there are those here that hold positions they are quite comfortable with and able to defend and I have examined them, but for me, I can no longer defend a futurist position.   Let me also be clear and say that if presented with sound and persuasive argument that refutes full preterism, I am captive to the texts and will adjust in light of scriptural refutation.   I know those here would adjust also.  It’s a fallacy to state that full preterism must be protected at ALL costs BUT I will add it MUST be defended until refuted and frankly, I haven’t seen that yet.   I’ve witnessed lots of claims but nothing persuasive that held up under investigation.  Not even close.

Years ago I remember canoeing a flooded river and we were on a broad section when all of a sudden we came up upon a thicket and couldn’t pass.  We were off course and had to back up a ways to get back into the main channel.  I see that happening with Sam.  I took the route he’s currently pursuing and it’s a dead end.  At some point he will have to back up or be content sitting beside the thicket denying he’s off course.   I’ve backed up and corrected my course.

Roderick’s argument for Church history is a strong argument and it did strike a chord with me but I have yet to see him make a strong exegetical argument.   I have great respect for the Church fathers and what they professed scripture to contain yet I also know that history can soon become tradition and tradition can carry on for a long time before someone challenges it.   It’s only been 500 years since the Bible was placed in the hands of the common man and with the advent of the internet, areas that were reserved solely for those who could afford an education, are now open to anyone with a search engine.

In teaching tennis to children I so remember Arthur Ashe saying we had never seen the world’s greatest tennis player because he could never afford to pick up a racket.  I happen to believe we have not witnessed the world’s best theological minds because they couldn’t afford an education in the languages of Hebrew and Greek and theology.  Now they have access and multiple venues to confirm what they learn.

I have seen some who hold that without those who are educated to teach that we can’t come to a correct understanding of the texts.  I don’t believe that.  He speaks to each of us through those texts and He is not the author of confusion.  His message was clear and concise and He established patterns for us to find our way.  Those patterns hold.   We don’t need to do gymnastics with the texts to grasp the importance of what He accomplished in a timely manner.

I’ve witnessed the other formers over the years and how well I know what they have experienced.  I have great empathy for them now that I’ve been there.  On the other hand, just like my experience, I find a huge lack of scriptural reason for their abandonment of the full preterist position.  I’ve seen some modifications but nothing of real substance yet.   What I have witnessed and even took part in was an attack on full preterism no matter whether there is a sound scriptural rebuttal or not.

Then I come to the issue of Sharon Nichol’s article “The Greening of Eschatology” where she claims Dave misrepresented Hill.  After I first saw that article, I took the time to read both arguments and did so three times.  Dave can confirm that I fired off an email to him and told him I just didn’t see what Sharon saw there.  I read Hill the same way Dave did.   I couldn’t find a public statement by Hill claiming misrepresentation, so I have no reason to believe that Hill feels he was misrepresented.  Maybe Hill does feel that way, but to me it would be incumbent on him to state that first.  Sharon made claims in her dialog with Dave that have not been substantiated yet either.  Please don’t think this is an attack on Sharon or her judgment.  It isn’t.  It’s just an observation and part of what made me draw back into study again.

In my posting at Preterist Blog a while back, I pulled a comment Tami made and it was misrepresented.  After I realized what I did, I drew back.  I should have spoken up sooner.   I want to extend an apology to her for that and hope she can forgive me for my actions there.

In regards to the comments at Preterist Archive that Mike Sullivan made upon my departure, well all I can say is I’ve done what I can to remedy that.  I’ve told Todd that it is a misrepresentation and to date it has not been removed.  I’m here to testify again that Mike should not be held up for ridicule.  His actions were quite correct and his statement to me was out of concern for me, not meant for harm.  He and I have already reconciled that issue and he’s accepted my statement of remorse over it.

As I’ve worked through the Ezekiel texts, dialoged with some here, I found answers.  I know some are going to be quite disappointed that I haven’t bought into their view, but I must be faithful to what I see in the texts and I do hope that dialog will continue in this area.  I’m not closed minded, but I am convinced that the full preterist position is a more accurate portrayal of those texts so I will now devote myself to defending that position.

I am making a call here for the formers to review their own actions and consider coming here to review the texts.  If not comfortable doing so, than I ask that the attacks stop until you can.  I’m making a call for you to go to the texts and reconcile them fully.   I don’t want you to have the regrets that I do over my failure to complete that task.  If you truly care about the people in this community and fully believe you have a valid argument than I’m asking you to present it now.

As far as those outside the full preterist community who think direct dialog is not necessary, and I’m talking about those who write against the view yet don’t interact publicly one on one in this community, I would like to encourage you to come here with your dialog that is if you’re not afraid of the texts.  If you want to continue to stand off and throw stones, I must say I will consider that a cowardly activity.   I would also like to challenge those scholars who revise their statements to their particular audience to stop and develop a consistent position.   I will probably address more in this area later.

Now, since this is so lengthy, I will stop here but I will add to this as things come to mind and that I feel I need to address.   I wanted to address more scriptural items but will do that in other posts.  I do have things I want to direct to specific individual positions.  Some I may do by phone first.  I’m leaving that option open right now for sake of brevity.

Thank you for hearing me out.  I have held up posting because I just wasn’t comfortable doing so without this disclosure and I needed time to put it together.  I am very relieved to get this out in the open so I can move forward in clear conscience.

I must say I have great affection for most on this list.  That has not changed.  If anything this experience has deepened it.  Thank you for that. 

Dave, thanks for being such a good friend.  You have given me all the room and time I needed for my study and have been such an encouragement there.  I so appreciate that.

Dorothy