A brief history:
In college and seminary I was a postmillennial reconstructionist. To put it delicately today, I am not. When I left seminary I understood the reasons behind Historic Premillennialism. Exegetically, I still think it is the strongest case. My own position, rather, was a mix between postmil and premil.
When I left the EO debate I was a convinced historic premillennialist. I stayed like that for about 3 or 4 years. One of the reasons that historic premillennialism won by default was that idealist Amillennialism was just so bad. It’s gnostic. But when I read the Reformed Scholastics I realized that they had a very interesting eschatological timeline worked out. Ultimately, I couldn’t accept it. It’s tied in with historicism, which says the Pope is the Antichrist. Mind you, it’s easy to pick on Francis today, and he deserves it, but he isn’t the eschatological Man of Sin who sitteth in the temple of God.
So that couldn’t work. So here I am today. I feel a strong tug in my heart back to historic premil.