An often overlooked aspect of amillenial vs premillenial is the method of interpretation. It is generally agreed among scholars that those who hold to the amillenial view employ the allegorical method of interpretation of scripture whereas the premillenial view is based on a literal interpretation of scripture. So a study of the history of biblical interpretation may help shed some light on the matter. I'll attempt to give a far from exhaustive commentary on the matter.
There is no historical evidence that the allegorical method was to interpret the scriptures in the first 200 years or so after Jesus. Throughout the Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters it is obvious that the Jews fully expected a literal land and a literal kingdom. One of the last things the 12 asked Jesus about just before ascending to the Father was if they could soon expect the kingdom that God had promised them throughout the Tanakh. Their is no evidence that they thought the 150 or so verses in the Tanakh that promised them a land meant anything other than land
It wasn't until roughly the start of the 3rd century that the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced. It was Origin (c. 185-253) who most scholars credit with introducing the allegorical method. There were a few others before him (for example, Philo, a Jew who was infatuated by Greek philosophy), but it was Origin who really got the ball rolling. He was influenced by the teachings of the School of Alexandria. The avowed purpose of that institution was to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures. I would suggest such a beginning is inauspicious to say the least.
It wasn't long before a problem a problem arose with the allegorical method, namely, who or what is to be the final authority as to what a particular passage meant? Who was to determine the precise "spiritual" meaning of otherwise plain words? One's mind could go wild without having some final authority to determine the precise meaning of plain words turned allegory.
That problem was supposedly solved by Augustine (354 -430 AD). He said the Roman Church was the final authority in determining the "hidden meaning" of the scriptures. Was that a good thing? Personally, I think not at all, but let the reader decide for themself. However, when deciding keep in mind that for some 400 years it must be admitted that apparently nobody knew the precise meaning of the scriptures! Furthermore, even after Augustine established the principle that the Roman Church was the arbitrator of truth, it must be admitted that for the next 1,500 years the common person was unable to understand the scriptures by their own personal study. With few exceptions, it wasn't until Martin Luther arrived on the scene that the literal method was reintroduced as the preferred method of interpretation. It was by his literal interpretation that he preached grace vs indulgences and obedience to the Roman Church edicts.
As I said, this is about as quick and dirty a summery of Biblical interpretation as quick and dirty gets. There is tons of information on the internet for anybody who wants to delver deeper into the matter. The main point I wanted to make was the amillenial vs premillenial ultimately comes down to allegory vs the plain meaning of scripture.
I want to clarify that I have nothing against those of the Catholic faith. I consider them my brothers and sisters and thus love them with my whole heart. But that has nothing to do with the history of the Christian church. Need I say, that the Protestant church also shares in the commission of many heinous acts throughout history? History is history. It is a record of things that actually transpired. It's not always pretty. The only solution to man's depravity will be when Jesus reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, when God renews the heavens and the earth, bringing them back to the original creation of Genesis, i.e. the renewed Garden of Eden.
