Just curious. I seem to encounter that more and more and I'm just wondering if being Amil is part of the tenants of Neo Calvinism. God bless.
No. John MacArthur, for instance is Premil. Reformed Confessions have rejected Preterism, but some in the Reformed camp call themselves Preterist and others have taken the Partial Preterist view. Most however fall either into an Amil or Postmil view.
The early Reformers would not even have considered any of those terms. In fact, the Preterist and Premillenial views were resurrected by Roman Catholic apologist to counter the Reformations eschatology. One should look at the terms that were used during this period of time to get the feel for Reformed eschatology. You can see this contrasted in the following,
Historicism,
Preterism and
Futurism. Here is a brief explanation of each:
Historicism sees The Antichrist in the office of the Pope and over time.
Preterism sees The Antichrist as a past figure, there are several that various preterist argue fulfilled that role.
Futurism sees The Antichrist in a future, yet to be revealed, person.
The Calvinist of the Reformation were more concerned with refuting the Roman Catholic heresies and errors, therefore they developed and adopted the Historicist view of scripture. This was the result of
Sola Scriptura and
Sola Fide and the desire to let scripture decide what are the matters of faith. This placed the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) on the defensive and they had to take the focus off from the historic evils of the Popes and their doctrines. Especially the teaching that the RCC was the infallible rule of the faith, something that the Reformers had refuted completely. So the RCC promoted two views, the Futurist view, which placed the Antichrist in the future and therefore could not be the Pope. This was the view promoted by Riberia and Bellermine, Jesuit apologist of the time. And the Preterist view which was promoted by Alcazar, another Jesuit apologist of the time. This view placed the Antichrist in the past, and so it couldn't be the Present Pope of that day.
Both of these views, the Preterist and the Futurist, were promoted by the RCC to be divisional and cause dissension in the Reformed camp. This has been, at least in part, successful as the Protestant/Reformed side of the Reformation has adopted these views and developed them into various eschatological schemes. Eschatology's that are often opposed to one another and divisionary in nature. We see this in the Premillenial/Preterist/Amillenial mess that now exists.
I hold a Futurist/Amillennial view, in case you wondered. I would be more than happy to answer any questions that I can about that view as time permits.
Blessings.