You've been posting a lot lately. That's great. All good questions.
I was raised Roman Catholic, so I never had a fully formed eschatology. When I came to faith in Christ it was in a pretribulational, premillennial incubator. I attended a Bible college of the same persuasion. Eventually I started to think and ask hard questions. The answers I received were all of the boiler plate variety. All that did was cause me to dig deeper. I looked at the writings of the early church fathers (the Patristic age) all the way through the Reformers. I read Darby, Mueller, Scofield, Chafer, Pentecost, and Ryrie. I read, prayed, and deliberated. It wasn't a matter of embracing an eschatology, it was more of first leaving a systematic theology. It was like walking out a door without a destination. You're no longer in the building but you're not sure where your going. All I knew is that I no longer affirmed the Dispensational system. There's a scene in one of the Matrix sequels in which the character Neo is speaking with the Oracle. Neo asks, "Do I have to choose whether Trinity lives or dies?" The Oracle replies, "No. You've already made the choice. Now you have to understand it." That's where I was in respect to what I believed, not just about Eschatology, but systematic theology as a whole. It wasn't until later that I was convinced that the Reformed view - the Covenant Theology view - of systematic theology was were I had planted my flag. But even within CT there are debates regarding millennial views. To be sure, all matters of theology are important and worthy of study. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The danger is allowing our study to deflect us away for the central message of the Cross. It's not our systematic theology that binds us to Christ, it is the blood of Christ - His sacrifice on the Cross - that does that. Everything else in our Christian journey follows after.