Covenant theologians have been pointing out problems with premillennialism for decades, usually of the dispensationalist variety. There are difficulties in the premillennial system. Fair enough, but there are also strengths as well. Anyway, I still hold to covenant theology and the implications thereof. My tentative premillennialism would be of a historic premil variety. My very short non-fleshed out reasons for the position are this:
Amillennialism takes the two resurrections to be that the first resurrection in Revelation 20 is “spiritual” (e.g., new birth, etc) and the second resurrection is “physical” (stuff at the end of time, great judgment, etc). The problem, as all premillennialists have pointed out, is that the greek word for resurrection used NEVER means spiritual. And it is quite arbitrary to say this is spiritual but that is physical. Even Vern Poythress admitted premils nailed amil on that point and others.
The weakness of the premil system is that after a while it seems you are positing 2 or 3 resurrections.