In my travels I ran across a very dispensational futurist article which was speaking aganst preterism but seemed to have some essential facts out of order, i.e. the difference between orthodox and heretical preterism. I simply assumed the most charitable thing and that was the author was simply ignorant that there was a difference, so I wrote said individual to clear up their apparent confusion only to be told:
I realize Sproul and Hannegraaff are not full Preterists but Hannegraaff has so confused good Christians with his nonsense it really doesn’t matter.
IOW, it is okay to publish knowingly misleading information when the author doesn’t like someone else’s point of view. Frankly I was shocked. I wrote back”
Hello ***, I understand that you have strong feeling against the view. That, however, does not justify mispresention either overtly or implicitly. I am asking you to be factual, not to agree with anybody. If one cannot trust a Christian article to present the facts as they are who can we trust? You cannot tell the “truth” by being unfactual.
I am asking that you correct your article to be factually correct, not to agree with these men. If you want to stand by your article as it stands, I am asking that you give me permission to publish our emails so that I can make a public comment against the inaccuracy of your comments. I am praying that we two can privately come to a factual point - not to agree with each others doctrines. Personally I find your dispensationalism just as horrid as you find my view, but I would never purposefully mispresent you or your view, and if I inadvertantly did, and someone (no matter what their doctrine was) presented me with facts that were verifiable I would immediately correct what I wrote since above all we serve He who is the Truth. You can tell what you believe is the truth about Israel without committing untruths against those who disagree, don’t you agree with that?
To which I got no response other than an assertion that the author stands by truth though said author admitted that the article’s comments were misleading but it didn’t matter.
Thankfully, this is not typical within the futurist camp, but should be a lesson for us all. Although my policy is that I have zero issue with publishing emails without consent when there is an untruth being perpetrated, it wasn’t necessary in this case to make my point, and I leave this individual to God’s examination.