Comments On Post-Millennialism

Earlier this week I made a comment on another blog (link here) that was talking about how destructive utopian movements can be.  In them the people are trying to make the world a better place, even the best place.  However, they frequently turn to mass violence and oppression because they misunderstand and then violate human nature.  Human nature in this world is corrupted by sin, which exists in every person and there is no way to intellectually or scientifically remove it.  My comment is below:

"Utopian movements in the West come out of Post-Millennialism. For some reason it was a widely held view within some groups of the Reformation.

Once the idea was secularized in the Enlightenment, it lead to all this hell. The idea that humans can perfect themselves and the world is pure hubris.

The key to me is that God has to make pure everyone who will enter into Paradise. It is a supernatural act.

I can't understand how Post-Millennialism ever had adherents. It is very difficult to build a case for it Biblically. But even if the Bible was clearly pro, it isn't practical, due to the supernatural nature of perfecting man."

My comment struck a chord with another commenter, Roger, who believes the Post-Millennial view, and added his comment, which I have provided below:

"RMB,

I will not enter into this debate, but you should know that I hold to the post-millennial view and have for more than 40 years. I was raised Baptist, pre-millennial, pre-tribulation, so I know what I have left behind. I will never look back.

If you wish to debate this on your own blog, write an article, send me a link (xxxxxxxx@protonmail.com) and I will mix it up with you. I will not do that on this blog.

You may be completely correct in your assertion that utopian movements come out of post-millennialism, but that does not mean that the concept itself is wrong."

I don't really want to make a debate out of this, but I do want to give Roger a chance to lay out his Biblical case for Post-Millennialism in public, semi-public in the case of this blog.  Roger, I hope you will take this opportunity to comment below explaining your view point.  

Comments

  1. jonathaMarch 6, 2022 at 7:10 PM

    seems like he didn't. not here at least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RMBMarch 6, 2022 at 8:53 PM

      Yeah. He didn't. He replied to me directly. I wish he would have put in on here. It could have been instructive

      Delete

Post a Comment

Most Popular:

The Ethics Of Liberty - Knowledge, True And False

Image
  The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard Rothbard continues to analyze individual rights as property rights in order to explain what rights truly exist.  In this chapter he applies that framework to knowledge.  This isn't as straightforward as dealing with things that are basic physical property because even though knowledge, thoughts, lies, and slander are not physical things, they can still have physical consequences. He starts by analyzing the situation when someone lies about another person.  Does Smith have the right to lie about Jones?  Looking strictly at property gives a clear answer.  Smith owns his own mind, his mouth, and a smartphone.  Therefore he has the right to use his own property to lie.  He can speak, send out a letter, announce over a radio station he owns, etc.  Smith has done something immoral but his action should not illegal.  In general, it is legal to lie in our day and time, so Rothbard isn't saying anything controversial here. However, he applies
Read more

The Ethics Of Liberty - "Human Rights" As Property Rights

Image
  The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard                  "human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to                 be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights                 on behalf of 'public policy' or the 'public good.' " I expect you have heard a variety of criticisms anytime you have spoken up for freedom or individual rights.  Those criticisms usually consist of claims that no rights are absolute.  One common example is you don't have the right to swing your fists in the space taken up by someone else's face.  Or they claim you should give up some of your own rights so that others will feel free to do what they want.  I call this the, "if I want to go to a concert then everyone else there must wear a mask so I won't get a respiratory virus", example. Rothbard addresses these criticisms by framing all "human" rights as property rights.  By doing so he shows that natu
Read more

Human Life Straddles Two Realities

Image
  Human beings were created in the image of God.  Classical philosophers stated that the human ability to reason was the key to understanding what that meant.  After hundreds of years of searching the bounds of reason, philosophers became frustrated.  Following reason alone did not produce the solutions they sought.  As a result, during the 17th century some philosophers in the West started to emphasize emotion.  Our intellectual and political elites have walked us down this other path for another couple of hundred years.  Society in the 21 Century has reached the end of that journey.  It has lead us to a place of confusion, division, and despair. I propose that the problem is both efforts considered only one aspect of  the human soul and neglected the other.  God demonstrates both reason and emotion in the Bible.  As His image, both constitute our substance.  We live simultaneously in two worlds, the objective and subjective.  Therefore, in order to make right decisions, come to accur
Read more

The Church And State In Romans 13

The proper relationship of the Church to the State has been discussed for centuries. Reading through history you can see the actual relationship has evolved over time. When the Church first started, the Roman State was their adversary with chronic and acute persecutions. From the time Constantine made Christianity the official religion of his empire through the Reformation, the relationship could roughly be characterized as a series of alliances. By the time the United States of America was founded, the relationship was no longer an alliance. In theory, churches were free to conduct their business without disturbance by the State, but the State no longer supported a particular religion or denomination. The purpose of this situation was to promote peace between the increasing number of different groups within Christianity and between each of them and the State. However, through the 20th Century to today, the government and culture has become more and more secular. The safeg
Read more

The Ethics Of Liberty - State Relationships Internal & External

Image
  The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard Citizens' Relationship To The State In previous chapters Rothbard wrote about the illegitimacy of the state and inconsistencies found in the narratives supporting its existence.  However, the fact remains that states exist and will for the foreseeable future.  The next two chapters focus on how those ruled by the state should act and how states should interact with one another. To start, the state exists on the basis of aggression.  Not only does it set up a monopoly on the use of violence, placing limits on the natural right of self defense, it funds itself by taking money from the citizenry by force (i.e. taxation).  Therefore, as an illegitimate organization, individuals have no obligation to obey it.  In fact taking over government owned property, refusing to pay taxes, and lying to the state can be morally justified if you aren't committing a property crime against another private citizen.  Everything they own has been taken by f
Read more

The Ethics Of Liberty - Children And Rights

Image
  I have to admit up front, this chapter contains my biggest disagreement with Rothbard so far.  In "Children And Rights", he starts with discussing the rights of parents to abort and neglect their children before partially redeeming himself by focusing his searchlight back onto government's aggression against children and parents. He starts the chapter describing his philosophy on abortion.  I disagree out of the gate.  Uncharacteristically he provides no logical or natural law basis for his foundation.  Instead, he throws out an assertion and starts applying his normal deduction atop this faulty starting point.                 "[with] birth as the beginning of a live human being possessing natural rights...                     While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formation makes                    birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks sufficient rational groundwork                    in the theory of self ownership." Everythin
Read more