Daniel Steele’s basic premise was Amillennialism vs Premillennialism. His material ie always geared to proving Dispensationalism wrong, leaving everybody to think his view, Amillennialism, the only alternative. Not true, there is also Preterism, Postmillennialism, and Historic Premillennialism, none of which figures into Steele’s scenario.
People that believe like Steele, are not necessarily Amillennialist, they become Preterists and Postmillennialists.
Nor is there one kind of Premillennialism. as Steele assumes in virtually everything he has written. He conveniently never mentions Historic Premillennialism. “Historic” because it is the view represented in the oldest writings of church history - the ECF. The ECF were to a man Premillennialist, but not the kind Steele rails against, they were neither pretrib nor dispensationalist.
There are two theories of Christian eschatology. The first is that the present dispensation of the Holy Spirit will continue till all nations shall be evangelized, "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in," drowning out the unbelief of the Jews till "all Israel shall be saved." After this period of gospel triumph Christ will wind up the probationary history of the human race by the simultaneous resurrection of the good and the bad and the general judgment, assigning them to their eternal destinies.
Then again, amillennialism and postmillennialism have always sounded similar to me--much more similar to one another than to the premillennial positions, certainly.
Also, the Early Church Fathers covers from Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr all the way to Gregory the Great in the late 500s/early 600s. They were not "to a man" premillennialist (of any variety)--for example, Origen and Augustine of Hippo, who were amillennialists--although many of the earliest of them were.
Thank you for the most important of clarifications. Now back to ‘watching and being ready and approved’ for His Return!