I take it then that the defense of a erroneous doctrine (amillennialism), which appeared 200 years or so after the end of the Apostolic Era, is to try and discredit a doctrine that was believed during the Apostolic Era (premillennialism). Eschatology is an area where the Reformers are not so far removed from their former oppressor. I think this is also one of the principal reasons the Reformed churches are in a death spiral.
The eschatology the Reformed embrace requires allegorical interpretation and spiritizing prophecy. As previous articles so aptly pointed out this approach to understanding Scripture, rather than literal interpretation, makes it easy to ignore clear doctrine in other areas.
Whether Calvin was correct in his view of amillennialism is immaterial. Calvin was arguing against historical premillennialism-not dispensational premillennialism. In the interest of fairness to Calvin, this author shouldn’t give the impression that Calvin’s assertions were in error for a doctrine that came along 250 years after he died. I’m sure the author could have found a more current author who he could have used as an example.
Wouldn’t you agree?