I thought that's what "preterist" meant, that some prophecies have already been fulfilled. I don't see it as name calling, just labeling.
You believe that the Olivette Discourse has been historically fulfilled, that is preterism, I believe it has future fulfillment, that's futurism.
Much love!
Yes, Truth doesn't get it either, apparently. I'm trying not to judge. But I know you normally mean well, so I'll try to explain again.
Preterism isn't defined simply by believing some prophecies have been fulfilled in the past. Do you believe that Jesus fulfilled prophecy at the cross? Of course you do. Does that make you a Preterist? No, of course not.
You see, Preterism is a system of interpretation introduced by Louis of Alcazar (in the modern era), and it involved much more than just seeing prophecies fulfilled in the past. It was more than seeing the Olivet Discourse fulfilled in 70 AD. Instead, it was an entire system of prophetic interpretation in which most *everything* is viewed as fulfilled in the time right after the earthly ministry of Christ.
Obviously, those who believe that prophecy is still being fulfilled today are not Preterists. Preterism is *not* just those who believe the AoD was the Roman Army. Preterism is not just those who believe that the "beginning signs" of the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in Jesus' generation.
Much more, Preterism sees the book of Revelation, as well as the Antichrist, as fulfilled in the time of the ancient Roman Empire and the Early Church. It is a system of prophetic interpretation in which it views most all of prophecy fulfilled in that time period, whether the Antichrist or Israel's Salvation.
The view that the Olivet Discourse was largely fulfilled historically in 70 AD is therefore *not* owned by Preterism, which is a school of prophetic interpretation which came centuries after the Early Church Fathers who largely believed in the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.
It's sad that there are so many misinformed about this, and so it needs to be carefully and patiently explained. Many do not give it 2 thoughts because they don't hold to anything but Futurism regardless.
I consider myself a Futurist interpreter, except that I agree with the Church Fathers that the AoD was the Roman Army, just as Dan 9.26-27 appears to suggest. I also hold to *future* interpretations of biblical prophecy, including the Antichrist, the Salvation of Israel, and the Millennium. I hope you get it?