Partial-Preterism?

Someone said: "Partial Preterism is an historic orthodox interpretation of the End-Times." It may have been, but it isn't now - and that doesn't make either view right. Like Justification by Faith. It wasn't popular for centuries, but became popular later. So a view isn't necessarily right just because it was popular first. Sometimes it's the view that only becomes popular later that is correct. Also, just which group is considered Orthodox has changed now. It may have been the Catholic Church once - but now Evangelicals and Pentecostals consider themselves to be Orthodox. So being 'Orthodox' doesn't make something right either. The popular modern view is showing no signs of weakening, and could last for centuries more, if the Lord tarries. Future generations could look back on our centuries and observe that Futurism was the historical view for a long time. So the historical view of any given period doesn't make a view correct either. "even though the last days are past, the ‘last day’ is still future." Certainly the predictions about the Temple and Jerusalem have been fulfilled - but the terms "end of the world"; "last hour" "time of the end", "coming of the Lord"; and "last trump" seem to be more all-embracing than to refer to AD70 events alone. When the terminology is identical in two or more different Bible passages, it's difficult to prove one passage is about something entirely different - especially seeing one passage was quoting the other. "Partial Preterism also believes in the progressive growth of the Kingdom and redemption of the earth as God's people reign with Christ bringing a progressive end to all the enemies of God, such as poverty and sickness, with the last enemy being death". That's similar to Post-Millennialism - but not all Partial-Preterists are Post-Millennialists. Some are A-Millennialists. And among A-Millennialists, not all identify as "Optimistic A-Millennialists" although they may identify as Part-Preterist. So Part-Preterism doesn't in itself imply that type of outcome prior to Christ's coming. "Partial preterism is an optimistic view of the end-times because it releases us from the Old Covenant of performance..." That can be established just as well without defining "the last days" and the "coming of the Lord" as exclusively AD70 events. God's grace and freedom from the Law were already being taught and experienced prior to AD70. AD70 was irrelevant to Gentiles, for example. And didn't change anything for Jewish believers either, who truly understood the grace of God. "...and empowers us in the New Covenant to bring the goodness of God into the fullness of life on the earth" The fullness of life won't come into the earth without the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. Paul also said that "all who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution". There isn't evidence Paul thought believers would cease suffering persecution prior to the return of Christ after all enemies were subdued. Rather, he said the second coming would result in an outpouring of wrath upon those who oppose the Gospel. And Paul didn't have AD70 alone in mind when he said, nor a future age prior to the last day - he had the end of all things in mind, because he discusses the resurrection in the same context. There's no break in the discussion between Matthew 24 and 25. So, while I agree with part-preterists when it comes to the topic of the destruction of the Temple, I'm still questioning their definition of "the last days" and "coming" as exclusively AD70 events. I think the meaning of those terms in the New Testament is broader. Certainly a lot of Reformers gave those terms more of the preterist meaning - but just because they did doesn't make it right. Some of those Reformers didn't have the Pentecostal revelation of spiritual gifts - that understanding became popular later - and it was right, while the Reformers' understanding was limited, even though their view was earlier and more widespread. I do agree that failing to see that parts of Bible Prophecy have already been fulfilled, can oppose the message of grace and of freedom from modern Judaism. But giving those terms ("last days" and "coming") a broader meaning (including a future meaning, not just an AD70 meaning alone) doesn't change the New Testament's teaching on grace, freedom from the Law, optimism, and victory over enemies. It puts it in the right way. Obviously I hardly know anything though.