[wmfights]

It was honestly split among the early church. The views on the millennium are not a “settled” question till very late. In fact, a great many in the Middle Ages still talked of it.

And yet the amillenialists would seek to discredit Premillenial Evangelical Christians as a "recent fad".

[redgolum]

If you read the Early Church Fathers (which I encourage), you will see that much of what we beat each other over today was talked of then.

The millennium was very popular in some areas, not so much in others. It boiled down often to the culture of the area. Those who were influenced by Greek thought and philosphy viewed it close to the amil position, those who were more influenced by eastern thought the premil.

If you have an e reader, you can down load the whole set of writings of the ECF for cheap. I would also encourage you to read Augustine, not just the parts that we all like to pick out. Or you can read Pelekin’s works on the history of theology for the thumbnail version. The latter has a nice write up of the influence of the millennium theology and why the lines ended up where they are.

For the record, I am a LCMS Lutheran and not premil.

[Diapason]

“And yet the amillenialists would seek to discredit Premillenial Evangelical Christians as a “recent fad”. “

No, we see DISPENSATIONAL premillenialism as a “recent fad”. Historic premillenialism was not dispensational, and was frequently post-trib. The historical pre-mills did not try to separate Israel and the Church.