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?
Winston, you are a breath of fresh air. And you have the audacity (freedom) to go public with a disagreement with a friend. LOL. Don't you worry about the repercussions if others think we can disagree on some things and agree on others? They might think that we ACTUALLY believe in free will.
Now, to your argument. I do think that premillenialism has a stronger case than does amillenialism.
In premillenialism one has essentially the problem of putting together all the pieces of a vast puzzle/treasure of prophetic utterances found in the bible. That is no small task and it presents great difficulty. In short, I do it because in my reading of the Bible the prophecies given before Christ had a literal fulfillment (a real virgin, a real Bethlehem, etc.) EVEN IF presaged by a symbolic passage. (EG; Nebuchadnezzar's statue with head of gold, shoulders of silver, etc. That symbolic statue was fulfilled in literal kingdoms and persons.)
Amillenialism, on the other hand, has these weaknesses. First, it is contrary to the testimony of the early church. Read post #9 and that is abundantly clear. Second, once one accepts amillenialism's view that fulfillments can be "spiritual/symbolic" then anything goes. Anything can be right and anything can be wrong. Third, amillenialism says that NOW is that peaceful kingdom of God....(When the moon is in the 7th house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars, and we survive our planet and love will rule the stars...Aquarius, aquarius, harmony and understanding...)
To say Satan is bound and that this is the era of peace is simply absurd. Beware when they say "peace, peace, when there is no peace."
So, then, as a premillenialist I'm left trying to explain how all these prophetic pieces fits together, AND amillenialists are left trying to explain how this Jeffrey Dahmer, Osama Bin Laden, David Westerfield PEACE fits together. (piece and peace...get it?)
I'll stick with fitting prophetic puzzles together. The other guys simply can't sell (to me anyway) what they're trying to push.