Should I be a partial preterist or not?

[YXU]

KMK I forgive many of my brethren who are ignorant. But my wrath is reserved for those who have studied all the eschatological systems of thought comprehensively and still hold to historicism or premillenialism.

I used to be a partial preterist, the biggest difficulty I have is that all the reformed confessions confess that Pope is the Antichrit, but preterists cannot.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

KMK I forgive many of my brethren who are ignorant. But my wrath is reserved for those who have studied all the eschatological systems of thought comprehensively and still hold to historicism or premillenialism.

I guess its a pretty good thing that we historicists aren't too worried about your wrath. Again, you are being very arrogant to have wrath for all the reformers, the writers of the LBCF 1689 and the WCF, nearly all protestantism until the 20th century, and many people on the PB.

Also, why are you placing historicism and premillenialism at odds? Post, Pre, and amillennial views can all be held while being historicist. Historicism is at odds with futurism and preterism (including partial).

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I guess its a pretty good thing that we historicists aren't too worried about your wrath. Again, you are being very arrogant to have wrath for all the reformers, the writers of the LBCF 1689 and the WCF, nearly all protestantism until the 20th century, and many people on the PB.

Also, why are you placing historicism and premillenialism at odds? Post, Pre, and amillennial views can all be held while being historicist. Historicism is at odds with futurism and preterism (including partial).

I have no problems with the reformers holding their view of the Pope being the antichrist. I will confess that they were ignorant in part. On this issue I take the position of G.I Williamson who holds to the WCF whilst still seeing that they err in reference to eschatology. Einwechter, Schwertly and others also hold this position. G.I Holford wrote an excellent little track also.

Scholarship has proven that the Book of Revelation was a Pre A.D 70 document. Scholarship has also proven that the book primarily centers around the destruction of Jerusalem. And no mental gymnastics can make "This Generation" mean otherwise.


Again I don't have wrath for the reformers. I have wrath for those of the 21st century that are privy to all the scholarship and still reject it. Heck even my boss an unbeliever knows that 666 is Nero. The 21st century Christian has the privilege of looking back on 2000 years of Christian History, writings and scholarship. I consider it cowardly for them to intentionally hold to imperfect doctrines that have been cleared up merely because they want to fit into a 16th and 17th century mold.

-----Added 2/6/2009 at 11:16:43 EST-----

I used to be a partial preterist, the biggest difficulty I have is that all the reformed confessions confess that Pope is the Antichrit, but preterists cannot.

Careful reading of the text shows that Anti Christ and "The Beast" are not interchangeable terms. "Man of Sin" can possibly be interchangeable with "The Beast", but I see no solid support to justify Anti Christ being interchangeable with The Beast. The context that John used the AntiChrist terminology in specifically refers to gnosticism. That being said, the Pope/ Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I guess its a pretty good thing that we historicists aren't too worried about your wrath. Again, you are being very arrogant to have wrath for all the reformers, the writers of the LBCF 1689 and the WCF, nearly all protestantism until the 20th century, and many people on the PB.

Also, why are you placing historicism and premillenialism at odds? Post, Pre, and amillennial views can all be held while being historicist. Historicism is at odds with futurism and preterism (including partial).

I have no problems with the reformers holding their view of the Pope being the antichrist. I will confess that they were ignorant in part. On this issue I take the position of G.I Williamson who holds to the WCF whilst still seeing that they err in reference to eschatology. Einwechter, Schwertly and others also hold this position. G.I Holford wrote an excellent little track also.

Scholarship has proven that the Book of Revelation was a Pre A.D 70 document. Scholarship has also proven that the book primarily centers around the destruction of Jerusalem. And no mental gymnastics can make "This Generation" mean otherwise.


Again I don't have wrath for the reformers. I have wrath for those of the 21st century that are privy to all the scholarship and still reject it. Heck even my boss an unbeliever knows that 666 is Nero. The 21st century Christian has the privilege of looking back on 2000 years of Christian History, writings and scholarship. I consider it cowardly for them to intentionally hold to imperfect doctrines that have been cleared up merely because they want to fit into a 16th and 17th century mold.

-----Added 2/6/2009 at 11:16:43 EST-----

I used to be a partial preterist, the biggest difficulty I have is that all the reformed confessions confess that Pope is the Antichrit, but preterists cannot.

Careful reading of the text shows that Anti Christ and "The Beast" are not interchangeable terms. "Man of Sin" can possibly be interchangeable with "The Beast", but I see no solid support to justify Anti Christ being interchangeable with The Beast. The context that John used the AntiChrist terminology in specifically refers to gnosticism. That being said, the Pope/ Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Jesus came in the flesh.

Proven? As far as I know, most scholars don't believe in a pre 70 AD writing of Revelation. No offense, but what great new information has come out in the glorious 20th (and 21st) centuries that make it possible for our generation to know the great secrets of eschatology that all of our forefathers missed? It's ridiculous to say that we have more understanding and insight than the reformers and puritans. You need to adjust your tone in this. You have a right to your position but you are insulting the confessions by treating their writers as ignorant children and you are insulting many people who hold to those confessions on the Puritan Board.

The use of the "antichrist" texts is a dodge. All you argue is that we shouldn't refer to the "man of sin" as "the antichrist" as 2 Thess. 2 is one of the key texts that proves historicism in proving that the "man of sin" is the office of the Papacy.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Proven? As far as I know, most scholars don't believe in a pre 70 AD writing of Revelation. No offense, but what great new information has come out in the glorious 20th (and 21st) centuries that make it possible for our generation to know the great secrets of eschatology that all of our forefathers missed? It's ridiculous to say that we have more understanding and insight than the reformers and puritans. You need to adjust your tone in this. You have a right to your position but you are insulting the confessions by treating their writers as ignorant children and you are insulting many people who hold to those confessions on the Puritan Board.

The use of the "antichrist" texts is a dodge. All you argue is that we shouldn't refer to the "man of sin" as "the antichrist" as 2 Thess. 2 is one of the key texts that proves historicism in proving that the "man of sin" is the office of the Papacy.

1. Most Scholars believe the Post A.D 70 dating because of Ireneaus.

2. The internal evidence proves likewise.

3. Scholars holding to the post A.D 70 dating didn't come from scholarship but from lazines and easy acceptance of the Ireneaus text. Proof is that there are no anti post A.D 70 scholarship. This issue wasn't one of debate, it was one of easy acceptance. I would go easy on these scholars because the reformers were operating under great persecution of the Roman Catholic Church hence it was easy to assume that they were in the "Great Tribulation", and that the "Pope" was the Man of lawlessness spoken of in the scriptures. In principle the Pope was a Beast and a man of lawlessness who was persecuting them. In principle they did endure persecution and tribulation. But the persecution and tribulation was not that which was spoken of in the Book of Revelation neither that which was spoken of in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13.

4. The Prophecies of Daniel, Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 disproves a historical approach to eschatology.

5. Revelation is simply John's Matthew 24.

6. Kenneth Gentry's Dating of the Book of Revelation has once and for all put the issue of dating to rest.

7. The first century Christians did not have a historicist approach to prophecy but one of imminence as it relates to the destruction of the Old Testament Covenant.

8. As per the reformers I greatly respect them but they erred as it relates to eschatology where it concerns the things that were supposed to happen after the resurrection.

9. My pointed words were to those who have been privy to 2000 years of Christian history and exceptional scholarship to still hold that the Pope is the Antichrist.

10. Antichrist vs Man of Sin vs The Beast is not a text dodge. The Antichrist is not the Man of Sin, and the Anti Christ and the Man of Sin is not the Beast. The Bible makes this plain. Any confusing of the categories is poor exegesis.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Proven? As far as I know, most scholars don't believe in a pre 70 AD writing of Revelation. No offense, but what great new information has come out in the glorious 20th (and 21st) centuries that make it possible for our generation to know the great secrets of eschatology that all of our forefathers missed? It's ridiculous to say that we have more understanding and insight than the reformers and puritans. You need to adjust your tone in this. You have a right to your position but you are insulting the confessions by treating their writers as ignorant children and you are insulting many people who hold to those confessions on the Puritan Board.

The use of the "antichrist" texts is a dodge. All you argue is that we shouldn't refer to the "man of sin" as "the antichrist" as 2 Thess. 2 is one of the key texts that proves historicism in proving that the "man of sin" is the office of the Papacy.

1. Most Scholars believe the Post A.D 70 dating because of Ireneaus.

2. The internal evidence proves likewise.

3. Scholars holding to the post A.D 70 dating didn't come from scholarship but from lazines and easy acceptance of the Ireneaus text. Proof is that there are no anti post A.D 70 scholarship. This issue wasn't one of debate, it was one of easy acceptance. I would go easy on these scholars because the reformers were operating under great persecution of the Roman Catholic Church hence it was easy to assume that they were in the "Great Tribulation", and that the "Pope" was the Man of lawlessness spoken of in the scriptures. In principle the Pope was a Beast and a man of lawlessness who was persecuting them. In principle they did endure persecution and tribulation. But the persecution and tribulation was not that which was spoken of in the Book of Revelation neither that which was spoken of in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13.

4. The Prophecies of Daniel, Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 disproves a historical approach to eschatology.

5. Revelation is simply John's Matthew 24.

6. Kenneth Gentry's Dating of the Book of Revelation has once and for all put the issue of dating to rest.

7. The first century Christians did not have a historicist approach to prophecy but one of imminence as it relates to the destruction of the Old Testament Covenant.

8. As per the reformers I greatly respect them but they erred as it relates to eschatology where it concerns the things that were supposed to happen after the resurrection.

9. My pointed words were to those who have been privy to 2000 years of Christian history and exceptional scholarship to still hold that the Pope is the Antichrist.

10. Antichrist vs Man of Sin vs The Beast is not a text dodge. The Antichrist is not the Man of Sin, and the Anti Christ and the Man of Sin is not the Beast. The Bible makes this plain. Any confusing of the categories is poor exegesis.

1.Preterist scholars don't because they are preterist. They change the accepted dating for their theological benefit.

2. No it doesn't. Preterists read their view into the text.

3. That's a cop out. The reformers living under Papal persecution actually qualifies them to speak to the subject. Also, the main text that supports historicism (2 Thess 2) doesn't even mention persecution but describes the spiritual wickedness of the "man of sin" which was the basis for the reformers view. Also, you don't explain why the rest of the history of protestantism also held to historicism. You are pitting 1 centuries scholarship against the entire history of protestantism.

4. What? For you to say the passages of scripture you mentioned disprove historicism then you are out of the arena of the "modern scholarship" argument and now insulting the reformers and writers of the confessions. They had these same scripture passages in their day. These passages only prove preterism if you pressupose that preterism is right.

5. No it's not. Again you're presupposing your view.

6. No he hasn't.

7. Yes, and Paul corrected them of that error in 2 Thess.

8. I know you feel that way but I believe they were not in error.

9. What about people like Hodge that had 1900 years of scholarship? Or the Puritans who had 1600? Why is the 20th century so perfect? I think the exact opposite. 20th century biblical scholarship is filled with error.

10. You said in your earlier post that the "man of sin" may be the beast.

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 02:58:28 EST-----

I don't have a serious problem with you holding your view. The problem is that you insult people who hold to the confessions. I'm pretty sure that is against the rules on the PB. I'm open to correction if I'm wrong. If you hold a dissenting view from the confessions on certain things its ok, but you certainly can't insult the confessional view like you are doing.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

1.Preterist scholars don't because they are preterist. They change the accepted dating for their theological benefit.

2. No it doesn't. Preterists read their view into the text.

3. That's a cop out. The reformers living under Papal persecution actually qualifies them to speak to the subject. Also, the main text that supports historicism (2 Thess 2) doesn't even mention persecution but describes the spiritual wickedness of the "man of sin" which was the basis for the reformers view. Also, you don't explain why the rest of the history of protestantism also held to historicism. You are pitting 1 centuries scholarship against the entire history of protestantism.

4. What? For you to say the passages of scripture you mentioned disprove historicism then you are out of the arena of the "modern scholarship" argument and now insulting the reformers and writers of the confessions. They had these same scripture passages in their day. These passages only prove preterism if you pressupose that preterism is right.

5. No it's not. Again you're presupposing your view.

6. No he hasn't.

7. Yes, and Paul corrected them of that error in 2 Thess.

8. I know you feel that way but I believe they were not in error.

9. What about people like Hodge that had 1900 years of scholarship? Or the Puritans who had 1600? Why is the 20th century so perfect? I think the exact opposite. 20th century biblical scholarship is filled with error.

10. You said in your earlier post that the "man of sin" may be the beast.

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 02:58:28 EST-----

I don't have a serious problem with you holding your view. The problem is that you insult people who hold to the confessions. I'm pretty sure that is against the rules on the PB. I'm open to correction if I'm wrong. If you hold a dissenting view from the confessions on certain things its ok, but you certainly can't insult the confessional view like you are doing.

1. Partial Preterist didn't change the date. The date was not firmly established, it was merely accepted from the Ireneaus script. Partial Preterists simply evaluated the evidences pro and contra. The evidences point to a pre A.D authorship. If the present day historicists are clinging to Ireneaus to justify a post a.d 70 authorship they are in serious trouble.

2. Internal Evidences such as the temple standing, the mark of the beast coinciding with NERO, the first century perspective, and time texts that point to imminence is not reading into the text.

3. The reformers lived under Papal persecution and construe the Book of Revelation to mean that it refers to them. What about Christians in Iran, China, Eritrea and Pakistan? Then the Evangelical Dispensational Christians believe the tribulation will be about them in America. Historicism does not give an objective standard to differentiate the great tribulation from other tribulation. Only partial preterism does because partial preterism takes the time texts seriously, "this generation shall not pass away".

4. Again I am not insulting the reformers. I have said they erred. My harsh words are reserved for those living in the 21st century that are privy to more information and still accept the reformers view on eschatology.


5. We all presuppose our views

6. Ken Gentry put the final nail in the coffin. I don't know how anyone could in good conscience hold a post A.D 70 authorship. But then again some Christians hold a 7 age theory of creation whilst the Bible plainly says 7 days.

7.

 

[Grace Alone]

Keon, can you explain what Ken Gentry found to support the pre-70ad authorship of Revelation?

Great discussion, guys!

 

[steven-nemes]

Keep it going...

 

[ManleyBeasley]

1.Preterist scholars don't because they are preterist. They change the accepted dating for their theological benefit.

2. No it doesn't. Preterists read their view into the text.

3. That's a cop out. The reformers living under Papal persecution actually qualifies them to speak to the subject. Also, the main text that supports historicism (2 Thess 2) doesn't even mention persecution but describes the spiritual wickedness of the "man of sin" which was the basis for the reformers view. Also, you don't explain why the rest of the history of protestantism also held to historicism. You are pitting 1 centuries scholarship against the entire history of protestantism.

4. What? For you to say the passages of scripture you mentioned disprove historicism then you are out of the arena of the "modern scholarship" argument and now insulting the reformers and writers of the confessions. They had these same scripture passages in their day. These passages only prove preterism if you pressupose that preterism is right.

5. No it's not. Again you're presupposing your view.

6. No he hasn't.

7. Yes, and Paul corrected them of that error in 2 Thess.

8. I know you feel that way but I believe they were not in error.

9. What about people like Hodge that had 1900 years of scholarship? Or the Puritans who had 1600? Why is the 20th century so perfect? I think the exact opposite. 20th century biblical scholarship is filled with error.

10. You said in your earlier post that the "man of sin" may be the beast.

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 02:58:28 EST-----

I don't have a serious problem with you holding your view. The problem is that you insult people who hold to the confessions. I'm pretty sure that is against the rules on the PB. I'm open to correction if I'm wrong. If you hold a dissenting view from the confessions on certain things its ok, but you certainly can't insult the confessional view like you are doing.

1. Partial Preterist didn't change the date. The date was not firmly established, it was merely accepted from the Ireneaus script. Partial Preterists simply evaluated the evidences pro and contra. The evidences point to a pre A.D authorship. If the present day historicists are clinging to Ireneaus to justify a post a.d 70 authorship they are in serious trouble.

2. Internal Evidences such as the temple standing, the mark of the beast coinciding with NERO, the first century perspective, and time texts that point to imminence is not reading into the text.

3. The reformers lived under Papal persecution and construe the Book of Revelation to mean that it refers to them. What about Christians in Iran, China, Eritrea and Pakistan? Then the Evangelical Dispensational Christians believe the tribulation will be about them in America. Historicism does not give an objective standard to differentiate the great tribulation from other tribulation. Only partial preterism does because partial preterism takes the time texts seriously, "this generation shall not pass away".

4. Again I am not insulting the reformers. I have said they erred. My harsh words are reserved for those living in the 21st century that are privy to more information and still accept the reformers view on eschatology.


5. We all presuppose our views

6. Ken Gentry put the final nail in the coffin. I don't know how anyone could in good conscience hold a post A.D 70 authorship. But then again some Christians hold a 7 age theory of creation whilst the Bible plainly says 7 days.

7.

1. No, the evidence doesn't point that way unless you need it to. Preterists need it to so they claim it.

2. 2 Thess 2 points to the fact that imminence was a wrong position. The Thessalonians held to imminence until Paul told them not to. Nero came nowhere near to fitting the criteria of the 2 Thess text. Also, just because the prophesies were written in the 1st century doesn't mean they have to be fulfilled in front of those who first received them. Most prophesies of the OT were not fulfilled until long after the initial hearers died. Also, how does the mark of the beast fit Nero??

3. No, they didn't construe anything because of persecution. I've already refuted that. The key texts that convinced them were not texts about persecution but about the false church leader who would claim the authority of God using false miracles. The persecution was less of an issue. Sometimes the "man of sin" persecutes and sometimes he doesn't but he always takes his seat in an apostate church and claims the authority of God.

4. I said you are insulting the reformers because this response you made was about the interpretation of biblical text not some new history book that came out. You made the claim that anyone who read certain passages should never believe in anything but partial preterism. The reformers read those passages and NONE of them held your view.

5. Then don't say something proves your view, say it corralates with your view. I have less of a problem with partial preterism than with that sort of rhetoric.

6. You not knowing how someone could hold to a post 70 AD writing does not mean there aren't good reasons to hold to it. If Gentry put the nail in the coffin then Grandma wouldn't still be in the kitchen. She's not even near the grave yard!

 

[Anton Bruckner]

1. No, the evidence doesn't point that way unless you need it to. Preterists need it to so they claim it.

2. 2 Thess 2 points to the fact that imminence was a wrong position. The Thessalonians held to imminence until Paul told them not to. Nero came nowhere near to fitting the criteria of the 2 Thess text. Also, just because the prophesies were written in the 1st century doesn't mean they have to be fulfilled in front of those who first received them. Most prophesies of the OT were not fulfilled until long after the initial hearers died. Also, how does the mark of the beast fit Nero??

3. No, they didn't construe anything because of persecution. I've already refuted that. The key texts that convinced them were not texts about persecution but about the false church leader who would claim the authority of God using false miracles. The persecution was less of an issue. Sometimes the "man of sin" persecutes and sometimes he doesn't but he always takes his seat in an apostate church and claims the authority of God.

4. I said you are insulting the reformers because this response you made was about the interpretation of biblical text not some new history book that came out. You made the claim that anyone who read certain passages should never believe in anything but partial preterism. The reformers read those passages and NONE of them held your view.

5. Then don't say something proves your view, say it corralates with your view. I have less of a problem with partial preterism than with that sort of rhetoric.

6. You not knowing how someone could hold to a post 70 AD writing does not mean there aren't good reasons to hold to it. If Gentry put the nail in the coffin then Grandma wouldn't still be in the kitchen. She's not even near the grave yard!

1. What evidence points to a post A.D 70 authorship of the Book of Revelation?

2. The Thessalonians believed the end had already come. Paul corrected them that it was yet future. .AD 70 was still future to the Thessalonians.

3. You haven't refuted anything, since at multiple times in diverse places the church faced persecution. Each Christian in each situation can construe their particular plight to be "The Great Tribulation". Every ideology that persecuted the Church thought they were doing God a favor.

4. I still hold to my position that the Reformers erred. re G I Williamson on his commentary on the WCF

PS.

Please give evidence that the Book of Revelation was written post A.D 70.

If it was written post A.D 70 how do we know that the canon is closed?

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 05:51:01 EST-----

Keon, can you explain what Ken Gentry found to support the pre-70ad authorship of Revelation?

Great discussion, guys!

Here is his work concerning the dating of the Book of Revelation.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.pdf

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I am a preterist when it comes to Matthew 24. I am an idealist/spiritualist when it comes to Revelation (ala William Hendriksen) because I haven't been convinced the book was written before A.D. 70. Our pastor, a Biblical (as opposed to full) preterist, just started a sermon series on Revelation, so ask me again in a year.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I am a preterist when it comes to Matthew 24. I am an idealist/spiritualist when it comes to Revelation (ala William Hendriksen) because I haven't been convinced the book was written before A.D. 70. Our pastor, a Biblical (as opposed to full) preterist, just started a sermon series on Revelation, so ask me again in a year.

fully understand your misgivings but Book of Revelation is simply Matthew 24 with more drama. Matthew 24, Book of Revelation and the Prophecies of Daniel concerning the end are all one and the same.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

1. No, the evidence doesn't point that way unless you need it to. Preterists need it to so they claim it.

2. 2 Thess 2 points to the fact that imminence was a wrong position. The Thessalonians held to imminence until Paul told them not to. Nero came nowhere near to fitting the criteria of the 2 Thess text. Also, just because the prophesies were written in the 1st century doesn't mean they have to be fulfilled in front of those who first received them. Most prophesies of the OT were not fulfilled until long after the initial hearers died. Also, how does the mark of the beast fit Nero??

3. No, they didn't construe anything because of persecution. I've already refuted that. The key texts that convinced them were not texts about persecution but about the false church leader who would claim the authority of God using false miracles. The persecution was less of an issue. Sometimes the "man of sin" persecutes and sometimes he doesn't but he always takes his seat in an apostate church and claims the authority of God.

4. I said you are insulting the reformers because this response you made was about the interpretation of biblical text not some new history book that came out. You made the claim that anyone who read certain passages should never believe in anything but partial preterism. The reformers read those passages and NONE of them held your view.

5. Then don't say something proves your view, say it corralates with your view. I have less of a problem with partial preterism than with that sort of rhetoric.

6. You not knowing how someone could hold to a post 70 AD writing does not mean there aren't good reasons to hold to it. If Gentry put the nail in the coffin then Grandma wouldn't still be in the kitchen. She's not even near the grave yard!

1. What evidence points to a post A.D 70 authorship of the Book of Revelation?

2. The Thessalonians believed the end had already come. Paul corrected them that it was yet future. .AD 70 was still future to the Thessalonians.

3. You haven't refuted anything, since at multiple times in diverse places the church faced persecution. Each Christian in each situation can construe their particular plight to be "The Great Tribulation". Every ideology that persecuted the Church thought they were doing God a favor.

4. I still hold to my position that the Reformers erred. re G I Williamson on his commentary on the WCF

PS.

Please give evidence that the Book of Revelation was written post A.D 70.

If it was written post A.D 70 how do we know that the canon is closed?

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 05:51:01 EST-----

Keon, can you explain what Ken Gentry found to support the pre-70ad authorship of Revelation?

Great discussion, guys!

Here is his work concerning the dating of the Book of Revelation.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.pdf

1. I'm no expert on proving a late date for revelation because my view works with either an earlier or later date. Whenever it was written it was not written about Nero. The point I'm making is that Gentry comes nowhere close to proving an early date through the book of Revelation and he has to if preterism is right.

2. It's true that it was future to the Thessalonians but he also gave some criteria for what must happen before Christ returns which Nero never came close to fulfilling. It also forces the preterist to the position that 2 Thess is not speaking of Christ's bodily return. That is a serious error that partials try to rectify by saying "He'll literally return later!"

3. No they didn't think they were doing God a favor. Most were pagans who didn't believe in God, not apostates. I have refuted your argument because I showed that the basis for the belief of the reformers was not Papal persecution but Papal apostasy from the truth. It renders your statements about persecution immaterial.

 

[CNJ]

Grace Alone:

Read Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell: An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a Pre-A.D. 70 Composition.

This last month a few of us have begun studying all the views on Millennial Dreams and I am pretty much a convinced Partial Preterist.