Much of the confusion within the Eschatology discussion are the terms.
Each camp sees the definitions of each term based on what they see in Scripture. Of course, the definitions each side recognizes are colored by their perspective of Scripture in general and Eschatology specifically.
For instance…
Dispensationalists see the Rapture as something like, Jesus returns, resurrects believers, and takes them to Heaven. So, in essence, Jesus comes to earth and does a U-Turn back to Heaven, waits seven years (the Great Tribulation) and then returns (a second time) to reign physically during the Millennium.
Amillennialists contend the Rapture is something like, Jesus returns, resurrects everyone (Just and Unjust), and God’s people escort Christ back down to earth. So, in essence, Jesus comes to earth, and God’s people do a U-Turn back to earth (much in line with what “rapture” meant in ancient times.
Another word of contention is literal
Dispensationalists view the term literal as physical-oriented and face-valued, which in essence, flattens the meanings of words and discounts the purpose of different genres in Scripture.
Amillennialists see the term literal in a more nuanced way. Christ’s reign from Heaven is spiritual yet literal, and I would even go so far as to say, it is physical, as well. Christ rose from the dead physically/bodily and is seated at the right hand of the Father in a glorified, physical body.
This is why, at least in part, the Dispensational camp has a hard time understanding Amillennialism. They’re trying to understand Amillennialism based on the Dispensational definitions. So, ad hominem attacks ensue – like claiming Amillennialists pick and choose what they want words to mean instead of “looking to the face-value meaning of the words.” But, as I’ve mentioned previously, Dispensationalists must break their rule in order to keep it.