This caveat makes me wonder if the premillennialist view of Calvin's day wasn't different than the view of today? If so, then Calvin's comment may have been accurate for its day and the premillennialist's view was modified to negate Calvin's argument. Once modified, it could be claimed that Calvin was in error which would be a bit disingenuous.
I'm not saying this happened. Calvin was not very patience with those people who disagreed with points on which he firmly held. Only that this caveat should make one pause and do some research.
This caveat makes me wonder if the premillennialist view of Calvin's day wasn't different than the view of today? If so, then Calvin's comment may have been accurate for its day and the premillennialist's view was modified to negate Calvin's argument. Once modified, it could be claimed that Calvin was in error which would be a bit disingenuous.
I strongly suspect that's the case.
The Charles Hill book I've been recommending looks at millennial interpretations in the first centuries. One of the interesting things he finds is that pre-millenialism in that era tended to be tied with a view of the intermediate state that we would find unusual -- that all but a special subset of special Christians, spent the intermediate state in the "good part" of Hades.
The old guys didn't always fit our modern categories well.
(More apropos to the dispensational eschatology question, I think, is Calvin's pair of chapters in the Institutes on the differences between the testaments and the similarities. There he's dealing with an opponent (Servetus, I think) who held that the OT only promises material, this world and this life, blessings. Not a position you see these days.)