It is in fact the oldest eschatological interpretation going. (The Apostle John's interpretation.)
One doesn't need to be calvinist to be pre-millenial, nor does one need to be dispensational. I do tend in a dispensational direction because I do draw a distinction between the Church and Israel. As this article points out, that is a critical issue in bible prophecy.
I imagine the calv/arm debaters are all over the map on this subject.
Then you are not in the Classic or Historical Pre-Mil camp as you claimed on the other thread. Justin Martyr, one of the leading chilliasts of the early church, was outspoken against what is now called Dispensationalism.
Your view, then is not the view of the early church, but the view of the invented, late comming, 130 year young Pre-Tribulational view.
Jean
However, I am hedging my bets, and will claim to be "pan-mil" (It will all "pan out" in the end.)
With all respect, my friend, I think you overstate the case.
First the article. If you carefully outline the argument he makes, it is not a strong one. The first section argues in effect, "Just because relatively few of the earliest church fathers expressed themselves on the subject and those that did were critical of millenarianism does not mean that there were not those who held to that view."
While that is surely true, it is hardly a ringing endorsement of millenarianism. I, for one, do not doubt that there were many among Christ's immediate followers who expected Him to return and set up an earthly reign. I think the reason that view faltered so completely among the early church was not simply the fact that it didn't occur (as the author argues) but the fact that it didn't occur after 70 AD and the great persecution which followed.
I think that the fact that so many of the prophecies of the Apocalypse seemed to be fulfilled in the collapse of society in 70 AD and yet Christ did not visually return and surely did not set up any earthly reign caused the church to cast about for other interpretations of the NT materials.
In my view, this is to the good because I believe the problem lay in the hermeneutic of those who wished then (and those who wish now) to interpret Rev 20:1-6 in terms of a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. They must (i) ignore the genre of the work (apocalypse, with rich imagery which cannot possibly be construed as literally intended), and (ii) interpret the very passage (let alone the entire book) inconsistently, i.e. the angel is said to "... then thr[o]w him into the abyss and lock[] and seal[] it". Now, does anyone think an angel can 'throw' the devil as one would a curve ball, or, better yet, that the 'abyss' is a physical place with a 'lock' on the 'door'. Of course not. Yet, they would gladly interpret that portion of the passage (correctly) in a very spiritual way, yet try to insist that the poetic '1000 years' is somehow to be taken literally.
This, of course, in the very midst of descriptions of various multi-headed beasts which few have ever contended should be taken literally.
Your problems multiply with the 'dispensationalist' overlay of John Nelson Darby. Sadly, Jean Chauvin is correct here (although, as usual, he manages to present his case in the most obnoxious possible manner: "Answer my question first..."). Darby's speculations are, indeed, late arrivals, but that, Jean Chauvin to the contrary notwithstanding, is not their greatest defect. [If that were true, on that ground the world would be spared Calvin's vicious trepidations.] The problem, again, in my view, is Darby's inconsistent hermeneutic. What the author terms "periodic "Back-To-The-Bible" movements" might better be seen as periodic desires for fresh reasons to believe, as the main page from which the posted article is derived declares, "The Lord Jesus is coming back soon! (www.rapture-report.com)."
Unfortunately, these periodic movements often display the same "I now know all the answers, including the secret handshake" so viciously displayed by the construct defenders here. Although I am not currently a member of a Methodist-heritage denomination, I think that, of all the historical movements, the emphasis of the Methodist movement of Mr. Wesley on 'holy living' almost alone avoided the unwholesome pridefulness of the construct defenders, the self-centeredness of the 'look at my gift' tongues-speakers and the know-it-all, 'look at my chart of the end-times' of the dispensationalists.
As the healthy skepticism of ponyespresso ("Am I a bad Christian for not really caring about all this end-times stuff as much as some people?") suggests, there are some things it simply does not behoove us to know all that much about. I would rather know more about holy living than the suprasubinfralapsarian order of non-existent 'decrees' or the ins-and-outs of who's first to the clouds in a non-existent 'rapture.' Yet how little 'press' such thoughts on holy living receive in the Christian churches of our era. Not 'cool' enough, I guess.
So, on this one, I part company with you, my friend. Why not use that fine Asbury background of yours and post some great biblical teaching on the 'second blessing' and the holy life and really send the construct defenders rushing down the hill into the sea?