Eschatology

Anyone have any opinions on Eschatology?
Personally I'm falling under Orthodox Preterist (still not 100% sure about full preterism)

Not a strength of mine at all. So I'd be just as interested to hear talk on this.

Well the orthodox preterits view is that most of the prophecies regarding end times (eschatology) have been fulfilled by A.D. 70 with the destruction of the temple.

The full preterits view is that all scripture has been fulfillled by A.D. 70.
Why you ask? I think it really boils down to this.

Jesus said:

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.[emphasis added.]

Okay this is obviously referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by the roman army right? So then Paul quotes Zechariah 14:5 and uses it in relation to Christ second coming.

So if all things were fulfilled like Jesus said than his second coming must be too.

Any thoughts?

Forgive my ignorance on this view, but... I don't get it. What are we living in now, then? It's been more than 1000 years since then so if that were accurate, we should be past the Millennium and into eternity by now. But we are far from living in a perfect world. So, what happened?

I don't have much knowledge on the theological words for things... I just try to take the Bible as literally as possible except when it's obviously using symbolism.

Really the "full preterits" think that all of revelation is symbolic. So off the top of my head they would probably say that 1000 years is symbolic. But I think that video would explain the full preterits view point.

Also it is very clear in John that John (the writer) was part of the 144,000 and that he was in the tribulation.

So basically... Left Behind is totally wrong in this view point.

Also I think just the orthodox preterits view would be that we're simply waiting for Christ to return at this point.

I'm still trying to work out which one I think is correct. I seem to be falling towards orthodox preterism because it seems very clear that the resurrection is physical and not just a spiritual event.

I have some pretty strong views on eschatology.

I subscribe to the progressive dispensationalistviewpoint. In a very small nutshell, it consideres eschatology issues on a case-by-case basis as they are found in the Scriptures.

Concerning Revelation (which is only a part of overall eschatology):

Progressive Dispensationalism affirms the preterist viewpoint in that many of the prophecies often have a double-fulfillment, or a near purpose and a far purpose. We saw this occur in Isaiah 7, wherein there was a near fulfillment of the birth of Emmanuel, but also a far-reaching fulfillment in the birth of the Messiah.(This viewpoint contends with preterism, because if the prophecies were only about near-events, then the book of Revelation is guilty of going beyond hyperbole and into exaggeration . . . a third of the oceans did not run with blood, etc.. Also, a preterist viewpoint would be forced to interpret the closing of Revelation, as not the return of Christ, but some sort of peacetime for Christians on earth.)

Progressive Dispensationalism also affirms the Idealist viewpoint, wherein the whole body of Revelation is useful to believers of all ages because it calls us to radical obedience at all times. (My viewpoint differs from Idealism because Revelation is not just a nebulous book of encouragement, but contains prophecies and historical data.)

Progressive Dispensationalism agrees with Classic Dispensationalism (or Futurist) in that it affirms that Revelation contains prophecies about the far future (like the return of Christ), but it disagrees with this viewpoint because Revelation does not present itself only as a far future book. It contained information that was important to the original audience.

Focusing on Revelation, the book identifies itself in three ways:
1.Epistle Literature (Letters to the 7 Churches, Rev. 1:4-11, Rev. 22:10-21, Rev. 2-3)

2. Prophecy (Rev. 1:3, Rev. 22:7, Rev. 22:10, Rev. 22:18-19)

2. Apocalyptic Literature (Rev. 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, or literally, "The apocalypse of Jesus) - This is a particular form of literature that entails revelatory communication within a narrative framework via an otherworldly being dealing in a transcendent reality with a view to final solutions effected by God.

The book identifies itself as all three of these genres. The epistolary nature of the book roots it in history and means that it was written to a specific audience, for a specific purpose at a specific time (preterism). The prophetic aspect can have a "near future" understanding, but many of the prophecies, especially concerning the second coming of Christ, are "far future" events (dispensationalism). The apocalyptic literature points to the past, present and future, and ultimately the finality of the future wherein God must step into the world to effect final results on the earth. (see Revelation 12 - 15 where we start in the past, then rocket forward to the future)and this affirms the Idealist, Preterist and Dispensationalist in some ways.

So, from my viewpoint, Revelation is a book that was written to an original audience who found encouragement to remain faithful during intense persecution and saw parallels with their situations and the events described in the book. It is also a book that the original audience, and all audiences would understand contains prophecies concerning the future, which included the return of Jesus to the earth. Finally, all Christians from all ages can be encouraged to radical obedience.

Concerning the video, the author does not accurately represent Premillennialism (which is a subset of the bigger Eschatology discipline).

There’s two major errors in his presentation of the Premillennialist viewpoint:

1.Premillennialist do not believe the wicked will be ruling in the Millennial Kingdom.

-At the Battle at Armegeddon, King Jesus will return to earth along with all the glorified believers who had died before. (Rev. 19:14)

-The Beast and False Prophet and their followers will be defeated, killed and judged.

-At this point there are no wicked persons on earth.

-King Jesus will reign for thousand years with the glorified believers and the natural-born believers who converted to Jesus after the rapture occurred and were on earth when Jesus returned.

2.Premillennialist do not assert that Jesus failed to establish the Kingdom.

- The Kingdom is here on earth wherever King Jesus’ servants obediently do His work.

- Premillennialist do assert however that the Kingdom has not yet been fully realized because the lordship of Jesus on Earth has not yet been fully consummated.

- The Kingdom is “already/not yet”


I know these issues can get rather contentious, and I don’t want this conversation to go that way. But I think it is important to understand the other viewpoints as their proponents explain them, rather than erroneous representations.

I think good arguments can be made for most of the viewpoints on Eschatology, and the Millennium.

But I would recommend the following resources to best understand all the viewpoints:

1.Four Views on the Book of Revelation Edited by C. Marvin Pate http://www.christianbook.com/four-views-the-book-of-revelation/9780310210801/pd/21080?product_redirect=1&Ntt=21080&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP (My view gets a pretty weak argument here . . . but I’m pretty fair and this will give a great overview!)

2.Three Views on the Rapture Edited by Gundry
http://www.christianbook.com/three-views-on-the-rapture/richard-reiter/9780310212980/pd/2129X?item_code=WW&netp_id=135284&event=ESRCG&view=details

3.Three Views on the Millenium and Beyond Edited by Bock and Gundry
http://www.christianbook.com/three-views-the-millennium-and-beyond/craig-blasing/9780310201434/pd/20143?item_code=WW&netp_id=143906&event=ESRCG&view=details

Free Stuff:

Over at Parchment and Pen, they posted a pretty good and fairly accurate overview (not exhaustive) of the viewpoint yesterday: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/01/the-end-times-in-a-nutshell/#more-10224


But at the end of the day we can all agree that King Jesus is coming again. All who trust in Him will be given glorified bodies and live forever on the new heaven and new earth. Come Lord Jesus. Amen.

I guess with that viewpoint you really cover everything.

I'm really curious what you guys think about the more extreme full preterism.

P.S. Hey Nathan I know you're a pastor. What denomination?

Technically an Extreme Preterist would actually say Revelation was written in the early second century and that they just used the apocalyptic genre to look back at events that had already occurred. In this view, John becomes more of a reporter than anything else. (So this view is very popular with secular, anti-supernatural folks).

But I know you're talking about an Extreme Preterist view from the point of viewpoint of Christianity. And here's my thoughts on that . . .

I love systematic theology. But there's a problem with systematic theology. Systematic theology, tends to try to put topics and issues within a "system". This is okay and is very helpful to believers. But, there are two problems with Systematic theology:

1. A problem arises when a particular scripture text does not fit into (or contradicts) the system. Then the theologian can either ignore the text, or force it to mean something it never meant.

2. A problem also arises when Scripture does not address (or fully-address) an issue that the theologian wants to answer. At this point he or she can either claim that this is a part of divine mystery, or they can push past the boundaries of Scriptures and present their best guess (while presenting the ideas as if it was actually found in Scripture).

So back to Eschatology in general, all studies in systematic theology need to be brandished with, what I call "doctrinal humility" especially when it comes to Eschatology, because we only have limited data. (Also, think back to the Apostle Paul when he was still Saul. He was a greater Bible Scholar than any living person today . . . and what did all of his scholarship lead him to understand about the Messianic Prophecies? Jesus is not the Messiah and I should kill his followers. His scholarship was totally wrong!)

My problem with extreme views of any sort (extreme dispensationalism, extreme idealist, extreme futurists, etc..) is that they have to either ignore large portions of Biblical Data . . . or misapply the biblical text to mean something it really doesn't mean.

Again, I think a typical Preterist viewpoint is valid, but I think an extreme Christian Preterist viewpoint is going to have a hard time with the book of Revelation self-identifying itself as prophecy (especially the far-reaching prophecies of Christ's Return, and even the Millennium).

So I tend towards Progressive Dispensationalism, because it tries to take into account all the data. But I also recognize that it is a system, and therefore imperfect.

P.S. I was trained in an inter-denomination Seminary (Talbot) and I'm an ordained Southern Baptist pastor. I appreciate the Southern Baptists, but I'm a Kingdom-Minded Southern Baptist and deeply appreciate theological thoughts from a broad range of minds, thinkers and denominations.

I'm not sure I follow. From what I've been reading on the subject they say that Revelation was written somewhere A.D. 60 but definatley before A.D. 70 (It would kill their whole theory if it was written after A.D. 70)

So it is prophecy according to what I've been reading.

It's just the angel/god (can't remember of hand) told John not to seal the book because it was for things soon to happen.
Also John said he was in the tribulation and he is also one of the 144,000 believers (a symbolic number)

Where do you get they say it was written in the second century?

The Preterist view has a number of variations. It is defined by the "nearness" of events. Some Preterists (again, anti-supernatural, humanists) go as far to say that everything in Revelation is just a metaphor for things that had already happened and that the book was written by some "John" in the early second century.

Christian Preterists certainly point to an early date for Revelation (60-70AD) because, you're correct, it doesn't work if the book was written after Diocletian death and after the destruction of the Temple. And Christian Preterists believe it is a prophecy that would soon come to pass.

It is important to note that there are some internal and external problems with dating the book prior to 70 A.D. I don't think these are insurmountable, but there are some issues!

Wow... I guess I've never come across the other view you speak of.

I really wish I could watch a debate on youtube about the different views.

I'm curious what the problems would be with the early date of the book.

Whoops! I meant Domitian in my post above, not Diocletian.

Anyhow . . . I am not married to either date at this point. I see great arguments from both sides.

Problems with the early date include: 1. The indication by Irenaeus (a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John) of the later date. 2a. 67AD is a really early date for their to be an ongoing ministry to established gentile churches in Asia Minor (i.e. the Seven Churches). 2b. The churches in Asia Minor must have had some established time because, according to Jesus, they had experienced a time of fruitfulness, but then experienced decline, then complacency, and then even apostasy. That takes time. 3. A later date points to Domitian being the Beast brought back to life (with his previous life being that of Nero). While emperor worship of deceased emperors had been practiced . . . it was Domitian who first demanded worship with he was still alive.

There are equal problems with a late-date, however. And I haven't studied enough to feel comfortable adopting either date.

Yeah... I guess the only point they can come up with to combat Irenaeus is that he said Jesus was 50 when he died so why should we believe him about Revelation?

The other point for the young date for Revelation is that it is talking about the temple being destroyed. And also John measures the temple. I guess it just seems weird to speak of the temple like that if it was written after A.D. 70

Yep. And those are problems for the late date.

In seminary I had professors who made strong cases for both dates . . . but there's holes in both arguments and I've never come to a strong conclusion for myself. But, from my Progressive Dispensational viewpoint, the dating is not a "make or break" deal. So that also may be why I haven't delved into it terribly deep.

I guess then the big question is... is preterism or full preterism wrong?
I know full preterism is considered heretical... but so was Martin Luther.
And I think no matter what conclusion I come to it's not really going to affect how I serve God.

Again, not wanting to start an argument, from my viewpoint Preterism is right about some things.

If we look at the history of biblical prophecy we often see a double fullfilment, or a near-fullfillment that begins something with far-reaching implications.

Was Nero and/or Domitian a type of anti-Christ? Yes they were. But did Jesus come down to earth physically to do battle with them and cast them into the lake of fire? No.

Understanding Revelation involves interpreting the book as it defines itself. I think Preterism only addresses some of these definitions:

1. Epistle (Some versions of Preterism Address this)
2a. Near-Prophecy (Preterism focuses on this aspect of the book)
2b. Far-Prophecy (Preterism stumbles over this. The Full Preterist answers this by saying there are no far-reaching prophecies, that it all has been fullfilled. The Partial Preterist says that the Second Coming and Resurrection of the dead is the only thing that hasn't happened yet, but this is an inconsistent interpretation of the book)
3. Apocalyptic (The Preterist partically addresses this literary genre, because this genre uses highly figurative language and images. But this sort of genre ALWAYS deals with a point in human history where things are so bad that God Himself must intervene in human affairs to stop evil, and bring about the ultimate finality of this struggle. Revelation, in that respect, has not been totally fulfilled - evil is still present.)

Full Preterism has some serious theological and literary implications. (Final judgement has already happened, Satan is no longer on the earth, the new heaven and the new earth is here, right now! Jesus already returned to earth . . . just spiritually)

Partial Preterism makes better sense of the Biblical data, and complements the other New Testament data concerning Jesus returning in Body, the physical resurrection of the dead, and the judgement).

I think Full Preterism could effect how you serve God because it changes your personal Eschatology.

But as partial Preterists, Dispensationalist, Idealists (mostly) and Progressive Dispensationalists can all agree is that Jesus is coming again, his followers will be given glorified resurrected bodies, and we will enjoy the presence of God on the New Heaven and New Earth forever.

Hackmodford wrote:Also it is very clear in John that John (the writer) was part of the 144,000 and that he was in the tribulation.

This part kept sticking in my mind because I knew I didn't remember John claiming this, but I certainly know I can't rely on my memory. So this morning I decided to look. The only places I found in Revelation which refer to the 144,000 are Rev 7:1-8 and Rev 14:1-5. Is there another passage I missed because I don't see that John refers to himself being in that number in either of these?

Thanks,
Chad

WhiteBoy wrote:

Hackmodford wrote:Also it is very clear in John that John (the writer) was part of the 144,000 and that he was in the tribulation.

This part kept sticking in my mind because I knew I didn't remember John claiming this, but I certainly know I can't rely on my memory. So this morning I decided to look. The only places I found in Revelation which refer to the 144,000 are Rev 7:1-8 and Rev 14:1-5. Is there another passage I missed because I don't see that John refers to himself being in that number in either of these?

Thanks,
Chad

You are correct. Sorry I jumped the gun there. It is not explicitly stated by John that he is part of them.

I just realized this morning that the Hebrew-Geek Bible Geek (another blog I run) has been covering Revelation since last fall.

The notes posted there are those of my Bible study mentor, Dave Lindstrom. His formal education is listed on the page. He's a guy I deeply respect both personally and for his knowledge of scripture. Although he considered becoming a pastor for many years, he determined that his calling was to dedicate his time more purely to studying scripture and serving as an adviser, classroom teacher and one-on-one study mentor to others.

I also really value the way he uses words, being careful not to teach beyond what scripture indicates or oversimplifying issues to fit into a dogmatic philosophy.

Each post on the blog is actually an outline for a 60 minute class. So there is a tremendous amount of great info that unfortunately does not transfer to the blog posts. (Still hoping to convince him to record his classes to podcast.) But at the very least, if you're looking for a way to read through Revelation, his notes function has a helpful "tour guide" as you read.

You can read the first post here- http://hebrewgreekbiblegeek.blogspot.com/2011/08/introduction-background-and-revelation.html

Today I just posted his notes on chapter 8, where he references the preterist view.

Anyway, that's the end of my little detour. Carry on everybody. I've been enjoying this conversation!

The link you posted doesn't really address the preterits view. Unless I'm missing something which is entirely possible

Hackmodford wrote:The link you posted doesn't really address the preterits view. Unless I'm missing something which is entirely possible

Correct. That link is to the FIRST post in his Revelation series of notes. (Posted months ago.) I just happened to mention later that today I posted some of his notes that reference the preterist view. So you'll have to look at the newest post on that blog to see that.

Sorry for the confusion.

OH well... still missed it I saw him talking about millennialist and premillenium etc. (forgive spelling)

Not sure if this is too off topic but one of the beliefs of "full preterism" or I've heard it called "covenant eschatology" is that the resurrection is not a physical resurrection.(Don't get me wrong, I'M NOT REFERRING TO CHRIST RESURRECTION) I read 1 Corinthians 15 and thought it was a physical resurrection. But then I watched Bell's explanation and re read the chapter and was like OMG it makes more sense to me! I'd like to hear others thoughts on this.

Oh and watch all 4 videos (they're really short, not sure why they're split up)

First, Let me deal with the issue at hand. You’ve now moved to “Personal Eschatology” which is an important issue. If anything, I think the Church has somehow moved into functional Gnostics; that is, we have made the body and everything physical “bad” and the spirit “good”. We teach that believers in Christ will die and go to heaven (which is true), where our souls will enjoy a relationship with God and the other believers (also true). But then we leave people floating around without bodies in heaven, as if that’s the end. It’s not. God created humanity with a body and a soul and they were both very good. Then in the fall both our bodies and souls became corrupted by sin. Fast-forward: The second person of the Trinity takes on human flesh and becomes the man Jesus – who is fully God and fully man. He lives the perfect life you and I fail to live. Died the death you and I deserved for our sin. And he was bodily resurrected, and ascended to heaven. This is important to note, because if our bodies were unredeemable, or unimportant to God, then Jesus would not have to take on a human body because he wouldn’t be planning on redeeming it. (Also, why would God create man in sinless perfection with a body, only to discard it latter as if it was some sort of cancer?) Compare Genesis 1 &2 with Revelation 21 & 22. In it we see a restoration of all things, from the sinful way they are, to the way they ought to be. Why would the body be excluded from this? The church has combated this “body as evil or unimportant” since Jesus’ ascension. It is from pagan philosophy, not biblical teaching.

So, in defense of what nearly every Christian institution has always believed for the entire existence of the church:

1a. The Jews understood resurrection to mean, at the End of Days, during the Day of Yahweh, that those who had died before would come back to life – in the body. This is why the Jews treated dead bodies very respectfully. God would one day bring them back to life. (This is also why protestant “heretics” were traditionally burned because the Catholic Church erroneously believed that God couldn’t resurrect the ashes of the dead, only the bones.)

1b. The Jews, for the most part, believed that the resurrection would result in a carbon-copy world where Yahweh would rule his people, and their enemies would be no more. (This is the backdrop which Jesus taught with.)

2a. In the following scene, Jesus affirms the belief in the bodily resurrection that most Jews held, but tells them that their understanding has not gone far enough:
18 Some Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection) came to Jesus, and began questioning Him, saying, 19 "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that IF A MAN'S BROTHER DIES and leaves behind a wife AND LEAVES NO CHILD, HIS BROTHER SHOULD MARRY THE WIFE AND RAISE UP CHILDREN TO HIS BROTHER. 20 "There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no children. 21 "The second one married her, and died leaving behind no children; and the third likewise; 22 and so all seven left no children. Last of all the woman died also. 23 "In the resurrection, when they rise again, which one's wife will she be? For all seven had married her." 24 Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 "But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, `I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, and the God of Jacob'? 27 "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken." (Mark 12:18-27 NASB)

2b. If we were to apply Mr. Bell’s understanding of Resurrection to this story (repeated three times in the gospels), it would go something like: The Sadducees (who don’t believe in transformational righteousness) came to Jesus and asked about a woman who married a lot of people who died. Then they asked, “When she is transformed into a righteous person, who will she be married to?”
This makes no sense, especially because Jesus and the Sadducees are both talking about a bodily resurrection at the end of days.

3. Furthermore, Jesus talks about a physical, bodily resurrection:
“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28-29 NASB)
Again, try and apply Mr. Bell’s understanding of resurrection to this passage. You might make some sense of those who are resurrected to life (except that whole thing of the tombs emptying), but his understanding about the resurrection concerning those resurrected to judgment makes no sense. (e.g. “living righteous to face judgment”).

4. After Jesus was bodily resurrected (his body was glorified), Jesus ascended to heaven and an angel told the disciples: "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." The incarnation of Jesus lasts FOREVER. The Son of God humbled himself, took on human flesh, was resurrected in a glorified body . . . and will forevermore remain fully God and fully human. He’s coming back to earth the same way he went up: in a glorified, physically resurrected body.

5. Paul does draw some parallels between Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, and our new life of righteousness in Christ (See Romans 6). But this parallel does not mean that Paul does not believe in the future bodily resurrection! Paul also used marriage as a metaphor of Christ’s relationship with the church . . . it didn’t mean he didn’t believe in actual marriages.

6. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul combats this very notion:
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; (1 Cor. 15:12-13). Paul here is very clearly talking about a physical, bodily resurrection from the dead. And he argues: There is physical resurrection --> Jesus was raised. AND Jesus was physically resurrected --> There is a physical resurrection. In Paul’s view, Jesus’ physical resurrection points to the resurrection of all in the future.

Against Mr. Bell’s presentation:

1. The Christian understanding of the resurrection is NOTHING like a zombie-Michael Jackson-Thriller video. It is a glorification of the body, a better body than we’ve ever had. (Look at Jesus’ resurrection appearances and abilities).

2. Saying there is no support in the Bible, like Mr. Bell did in video #4 above, doesn’t mean that there isn’t any. I just supplied a bunch of data above without consulting anything other than my Bible and using a simple cut and past feature to supply the text. There’s more data out there.

3. Mr. Bell, I think, confuses Santification and the New Life with resurrection. Believers are transformed in Christ. No one argues against that. But we’re also resurrected in the future, (So are the unrighteous . .. to death, but that’s another issue). They’re different issues.



Second, I'm not sure how you came across Mr. Bell. I read his "about" statement and it sounds like he has not been able to find a flock willing to work with him and has thus turned to the internet. That issue aside, I find his teaching troubling for the following reasons:

1. He has an inconsistent hermeneutic, or method of interpreting biblical data. I have a literal/literary hermeneutic where I interpret the text based on the genre of the text in the literal sense that the genre demands. If the text presents itself as using metaphor, I interpret it as a metaphor. If it presents itself as an essential doctrine, I interpret it as an essential doctrine. Mr. Bell does not do this. He seems to switch between calling a text symbolic, then literal based on his own theological beliefs. (i.e. Resurrection literally means a bodily transformation/glorification. If Paul is teaching doctrine . . . which he is most of the time . . . then he does not mean “I’m using resurrection to represent living a righteous life. He had a word for that . . . sanctification, or living righteously. In the above examples Paul is very specific when he is using metaphors and talking straight doctrine.)

2. He often uses texts that do not directly deal with the topic at hand to prove his point. 1 John 1:1-2 is not directly dealing with resurrection. Philippians 2 is not dealing with resurrection.

3. He uses straw man arguments. He presents the counterpoint text as if it is the only text his opposition has for their case. For instance, he presents Psalm 17:15 as if that’s all believers have to go on. It’s not, and truthfully I’ve never seen anyone use this as the “go-to” text to demonstrate the resurrection.


I wish I had some better resources for sound Biblical teaching for free online . . . but I don’t right now. I do recommend most everything at Biola’s website (awesome stuff):

https://www.youtube.com/user/BiolaUniversity
(Do a search here for Eschatology and Revelation . . . there’s some decent overviews)



Dr. William Lane Craig has a great podcast through his “Defenders” class. Several of the classes are dedicated to “The Last Things”:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=podcasting_main

I think Partial Preterism is a valid biblical view. Full Preterism is dubious, but there are Christians who correctly use Scripture to make their case out there. I would refer back to that “Four Views on Revelation” book.