The Parousia - James Stuart Russell

After rereading Matthew 24 and the interpretation of it by Russell in the above link, I realized that Engelsma's argument is against a straw man, at least in regards to my view. Engelsma argues against Kik's interpretation and specifically attacks the hard line Kik draws at verse 34 between what is fullfilled and what is still to come. My understanding, like Russell, is that there is a continuance of thought throughout the chapter and that throughout it all, Christ was speaking of pre-AD 70 events. Once I reaffirmed this, Engelsma's argument blows up in smoke in my mind. All of his points are either circular logic or straw-man arguments, at least in my mind.

So, what does this mean? It means that I am once again a dedicated believer in partial preterism. And it is going to take something better than Engelsma's article to convince me otherwise. Jesus words are so clear, so it's difficult for me to conceive of a rational argument against preterism.

I have yet to be convinced of postmillennialism however. To theonomy, I say probably, to reconstruction, maybe. As I keep saying, more study is required.