When it comes to "last days" prophecy, there is a spectrum of beliefs in what has or has not been fulfilled. It is getting to the place were everyone has their own valued opinion. Mine is what is most important.
There are some that place a great deal of events in the unfulfilled and some that place all events in the fulfilled.
The broad titles of pre-mil, a-mil, post-mil is an example of that spectrum. So is there a broad spectrum of partial to that of full preterist.
One can actually be a historical pre-mil and hold to some areas of agreement with the partial preterist thinking, just as the a-mil and post-mil would agree more kindly with the full preterist thinking.
What actually separates dispensational and pre-mil folks from partial and full preterist views is how literally one takes the Sciptures concerning the gathering of Israel into a nation, the battle of Armegedon, and Millenium. The preterist folks (both full and partial) generally reject any literal interpretations having to do with these events or assign them as applying to some other matters than what the dispensational and pre-mil folks assign.
For example: In the "Olivet discourse" if one follows the Lord's statements, they cannot help but understand that, as the disciples were leaving the temple and remarked to Christ about the magnitude of the building, He spoke most certainly about the destruction that was going to come to that place.
Then as they sat at the Mount of Olives they ask of three separate events:
1) When will these things be
2) What will be the signs of your coming
3) What will be the signs of the end of the age
The preterest (full) hold that all prophecies are complete and no more need to look for some fulfillment. They generally consider that God's covenant with the national Israel is severed and there is no promise given of a national restoration and general salvation of that people. This aligns with much of the church teachings from the time of Augustine on to today.
The preterest (partial in various manners) hold that more closely to pre-mil and dispensation. That there is prophecy of the discourse that were definitive to be complete at 70 ad, and others yet to be fulfilled, and that the coming of Christ (resurections) is not a singular event but a series of comings that will culminate in a final "end of the age" return.
In discussions with partial preterist folks, it is at times rather difficult to mark out their differences from that of a historic pre-mil, and (imo) there is far to much made of nuance differences and one holding on to a title just to be different.
No doubt some of the discourse statements are fulfilled.
No doubt some are yet to be fulfilled.
No doubt Christ is coming in the flesh just as he left in the flesh.
No doubt that the one tool of the enemy of believers is to create doubt, and one of those doubts will and has been over the manner and the prophecies concerning His return. It is a wise servant who will discern the Scriptures with the understanding and hope of God in their hearts.
As John records at the end of his life, "Even so, Come, Lord Jesus."
But then perhaps His return is just allegorical hyperbole and is actually walking among us right now or has already come and we're all just left behind - which was what Paul had to address.
Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?
The question is: Does this statement by Paul need to be ignored as fulfilled?
To answer it, one must contend with:
Did the temple of Jerusalem represent apostasy?
Did Titus represent the "son of destruction" and was Capta "revealed" as the man of lawlessness?
Did Titus exalt himself sit in the temple while it was being destroyed, after it was destroyed, before it was destroyed?
For me, Titus and Capta just don't compare to what Paul is pointing out. The apostasy is not the old Israeli worship, that was no different that the problems from Eli's day. The apostasy is the church. Therefore, the following words by Paul must contend with something more future than that of 70 ad.
Some will disagree, but in my opinion I am unanimous in it.
