For the past two months, American Vision has been trying to find someone from the dispensational position to debate the following topic: “The Olivet Discourse: Future or Fulfilled?” Some of the people we contacted had legitimate reasons for not being able to participate. Most did not. Thomas Ice, who I have debated eight times in the past 15 years, is almost always ready to debate. For this, he deserves credit. When top-name advocates of a position fail to stand up to defend their position, the end of that position is near. That’s a preterist near, not a dispensational near.
In a couple of cases, I was told that “debates don’t solve anything.” Debates do make a difference, and I have the testimonials to prove it. A debate forces each debater to defend his rarely admitted weak points. I know what’s difficult to defend as a preterist, and I know what’s difficult for a dispensationalist to defend. There’s no place to hide in a debate. The weak points will be exposed for all the world to see. You better have a ready and convincing answer.
A number of articles have been published attacking preterism, both partial and full. Dr. Ed Hindson of Liberty University wrote “The New Last Days Scoffers” in Jerry Falwell’s National Liberty Journal (May 2005). I responded to most of his points in six articles. Dr. Norman Geisler published an irenic response to Hank Hanegraaff’s The Last Disciple. Neither of these men would participate in a public debate on the topic they cover in their articles. Their published responses to preterism are designed for audiences that will not question their poorly constructed arguments because they won’t know they’re poorly constructed.
Writing an article for a sympathetic audience isn’t much of a challenge. Having to defend your position by a critic in front of a questioning and sometimes skeptical audience can be unnerving. Stepping into a batting cage to take some swings at pitches going the same speed and delivered in the same spot each time is one thing; having to face a pitcher who can throw a fast ball, curve, change up, and slider, high or low, inside or outside, is an altogether different experience.
Even some dispensationalists are noticing that their position is being questioned on a larger scale than most will admit. Jan Markell, who publishes The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest, writes that she has gotten word “that most Christian [publishing] houses were dropping newly-submitted Bible prophecy books with a few exceptions. LaHaye/Jenkins will likely continue to sell as well as Mark Hitchcock through Multnomah, and sadly, Hannegraff’s false Preterism books. Harvest House seems open only to Dr. J. Randall Price on Temple issues. Teachers like Hal Lindsey, Grant Jeffrey, and Dave Hunt, and David Reagan, have resorted to forming their own publishing houses or just self-publishing.” She “was also informed that some of the finest seminaries and Bible colleges/Institutes that shall remain unnamed but known for true Dispensational belief are backing down.”
This is very good news when dispensationalists acknowledge it. American Vision is leading the way in exposing the false prophetic system of dispensational premillennialism, and we’ve been self-publishing for years. Who needs the major publishing houses? They sold out a long time ago.
 Norman Geisler, “Examining the Theology of Hank Hanegraaff’s book, The Last Disciple,” National Liberty Journal(May 2005), 4–5.
 Jan Markell, “The War Against Bible Prophecy,” The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest (February 1, 2006): www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=5841