We had a couple of men come and present the full preterist position to our mid-week Bible study a few weeks ago. It seems to me, however, that full preterism proposes the same hermeneutical error the early dispensationalists did. The early dispensationalists wanted everything concerning the kingdom postponed, and the full preterists want everything concerning the kingdom now or already accomplished. I still see progressive fulfillment of prophecy as the simplest explanation of how things are fulfilled and yet elements of many of the prophecies are not yet fulfilled, or not completely so until the consummation of the age. That still allows me a consistent literal hermeneutic throughout all the scripture. Most spiritualizing methods of hermeneutics seem to me to stem from Gentile pride that Paul warns against in Romans and the error that God is utterly finished with national Israel. But they cannot explain sufficiently to me Matt 23.39; Luke 21.24; Acts 1.6; Romans 8:18-25; 11:11-12, 15, 25-27; 15:8-12. There is an age to come in which all the prophecies to Israel will be realized fully (Eze 36.6-15, 22-32, note also the allusion of Romans 11:15 to Eze. 37), and we Gentiles have spiritually and prematurely (before Israel) entered into the wonder of the wisdom and knowledge of God (Rom 11:33), that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Eph 2.7). There is no emphasis in the NT concerning how or when this will be brought about (Acts 1.7) other than at His coming, but the fact that it will be brought about is nevertheless certain (Acts 1.11).
As a side note, the common "at hand," "soon," "quickly" phrases have always been used in prophecy, particularly in the OT day of the Lord prophecies, to denote imminency and suddenness. I think they are verbal signals to us of the type of literature we are dealing with--prophetic formulas if you will. Of course there were literal fulfillments to some of these passages within the temporal terms, but many prophecies seem to look beyond the near fulfillment. Isaiah 11, note verse 10 "in that day" is an example (cf. 10:24 "in a very little while," 10: 27 "so it will be in that day," 11.1 "then," and 11.11 "then it will happen on that day," et.al.). The chapter begins with the birth of the Savior and his ministry among men, but jumps to his reigning with a rod (v. 4, cf. "rod of iron" in Psa 2.9; Rev 2.27; 12.5; 19.15) and the age to come (vv. 6-10). Without seeing this prophecy fulfilled in stages would leave one with a very truncated and bizarre theology indeed.
Since you brought up my photography page, I will use it as an illustration. I liken prophetic perspective (as the commentators call it) to "depth of field" in photography. Depth of field is determined by three factors. 1) Distance to the subject 2) focal length or angle or view of your lens, and 3) aperture of the lens. When your distance to the subject is short, your telephoto lens is zoomed all the way in, and your aperture opened up to let in the most light, you have the shallowest depth of field possible. The foreground and the background are a blur. I think that happens with understanding prophecy. The more closely we focus in on the details of a specific unfulfilled prophecy the less our understanding of the specific fulfillment of that prophecy. But the more we widen our perspective and see it in the context of the larger prophetic field, the more accurate we are about placing it in its proper relationship to the Bible as a whole. There is a darkness or enigmatic aspect to prophecy (Numbers 12.6-8). We of course living at this time have the advantage of the Bible as a whole and trying to understand specific prophecies within a larger framework. But there are limits to what we will ever be able to know in this life. 1 Corinthians 13.12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known.
Hope this gives you some food for thought. Hang tough to His Word.
Bookmarks