Teologia Sistemática (GRUDEM): 2ª Ed. revisada e ampliada.

by Wayne Grudem

Teologia Sistemática (GRUDEM): 2ª Ed. revisada e ampliada.

Genres: Politics, Theology, Christian, Christianity, Nonfiction, Cultural, Reference

Hardcover

First published September 3, 2010

About the author

Wayne Grudem (PhD, University of Cambridge; DD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is research professor of theology and biblical studies at Phoenix Seminary, having previously taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Grudem earned his undergraduate degree at Harvard University, as well as an MDiv from Westminster Seminary. He is the former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, a cofounder and past president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a member of the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible, the general editor of the ESV Study Bible, and has published over 20 books, including Systematic Theology, Evangelical Feminism, Politics—According to the Bible, and Business for the Glory of God.

Reviews

[Mark Sequeira · Rating 1 out of 5]

I respect Wayne Grudem but this book should be titled, "Politics according to the far right Republican Party. Sorry. I am a conservative but I am also a thorough-going Biblicist and political activist (in the good, community-sense trying to bless others and expand the Kingdom of God in visible and invisible ways that God would own!) and I must say, IMHO this book is just an atrocious mess.



I wish I could be more gracious - but writing a book in admitted response to the recent growth in readership of Jim Wallis, Shane Clairborne, etc. by Christians AND labeling it 'Politics according TO THE BIBLE.' is unforgivable.



This is a huge over-sized book of some 600+ pages and is full of very specific rules 'according to the Bible' versus principles and then application. One only needs to turn to the SPECIFIC ISSUES: Chapter 15: Special Groups - J. Native Americans (American Indians) pg 547 to get a basic idea of where we are going.



In this chapter we discover the problems of Indian tribes and the solution: Abolish tribal land protections and assign all the land to individuals (regardless of former treaties) who can then sell that land to natives or non-natives. We are told that the solution to native issues is progress and self-improvement (at least economically) and that is largely based on individual ownership. Indeed, Native Americans are actually cursed because they are breaking Old Testament laws based on Individual Property rights! Based on his own words, "As I have argued in chapter 9 (see pp. 261-68), the Bible teaches a system of private ownership of property, not tribal ownership or governmental ownership. So in this case I think it is right to recognize that these tribal traditions are in direct conflict with the teaching about property in the Word of God." (Now I must say, as someone who has worked in other cultures, has studied cross cultural ministry and contextualization...As someone that can respect other cultures yet look at those things within culture that harm or hold societies back from the Kingdom of God, I think this analysis is sadly lacking. I challenge Doctor Grudem and you, the reader, to actually study Indian history and culture studies as well as their relations with the U.S. Government (even as humble as Dee Brown's 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee') before proclaiming that the main problems Indians deal with can be solved through assigning land titles to individuals among tribal peoples.



We are then told that we have no time to go into any of these principles in detail but it would all have to be worked out by the tribes themselves with the U.S. Government (presumably by forcing them to do just that - for their own good!). Would this then mean the assimilation of Indian peoples? Yes. He admits. Except they should have a 'Disneylandesque-center' in order to remember their heritage.



Next, we are told we must reform the Indian courts and basically abolish them since they can be in opposition to our hallowed U.S. Court system. Once again, we are told, "this reform would remove some measure of tribal sovereignty over the areas in which Native Americans live. But, once again, the choice is clear: will Native Americans cling to their traditions-which are trapping their people in poverty and economic despair, and in alienation from the prosperous society that surrounds them-or will they abandon some of these traditions for the good of their people?" Then he actually has the audacity to say, "If they take seriously the Bible statement that a civil government ruler should be 'God's servant for your good' (Rom. 13:4) then they should implement these reforms, because they clearly would bring good to their people." Meaning the same court system and government that they could never trust to not steal their land or shoot their people or reneg on their word?



Clearly, in his chapter on self protection, Doctor Grudem believes that we have the right to protect ourselves, yet the Native Peoples do not have that same right since they were in rebellion against God when we decided to start killing them due to our own misunderstandings and cultural arrogance.



This book has so many American cultural assumptions that it is practically unusable. I didn't know that we had American civil proclamations in the first century Jewish and Roman context but don't put it past the Holy Spirit to write the Bible for US since we already possess so much cultural arrogance that we can't imagine the Bible being written for first century believers or indeed believers that wouldn't recognize or even understand our variety of church and state and western democracy and individualism.



I wanted this to be a good book. I've read probably 20-30 on politics and Jesus or the Bible. This is clearly one of the worst for anyone looking for a place to begin or anyone looking for Biblical principles.

[Mark Glidden · Rating 1 out of 5]

The title of this book is very misleading. There ought to be a subtitle stating "If you are a Fundamentalist and have removed all trace of conscience". This book is such twaddle that it almost defies any sort of serious attempt at criticism. It's cold in it's approach towards so many sensitive issues, but most painfully, so unashamedly polarizing in the way it deals with literally every single political issue we face in the 21st century. Grudem is infuriating in his self-righteous espousal of Biblical principles as a basis for an ultra-conservative political stance, so much so that one often gets the impression that he would be better suited as a Bible Belt Republican rather than a "theologian". Let us pray that this book might, in future, become known as an obscure and outdated text, and that when dealing with political issues, Christians might remember only two quotes from the Bible, both taken from Our Lord: "Judge not, lest you too be judged" and "Love one another".

[Adam T. Calvert · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I appreciate that Grudem presents the reader with a lot of thoughtful research and analysis in well presented style, tone, and sincerity, I have a very difficult time in seeing how this book lives up to its title.

The book is definitely about politics from a Christian perspective - Grudem's Christian perspective. But it is certainly not a standard on politics "according to the Bible."

As far as I’m concerned it really seems like the book presents the Republican platform baptized in proof-text Christian Scriptures.

The great things about this book are the very detailed explanations of how our government is supposed to work (concerning how it was originally set up), how it's currently functioning, and some of the difficult issues that are dividing the nation. There really is a great deal of reference material in here and some truly sobering facts.

The down side to the book was how a Christian is actually supposed to respond. He argues that Christians should have significant influence in their government, and he presents some texts that indicate as much. And that is great! But he approaches the Scriptures with a very pick-and-choose attitude as to which texts actually apply to politics.

Particularly disturbing was his dealings with the very school of thought that can actually do much more than simply criticize the current government situation but that can truly offer a substantial alternative with solid authority behind it - the school of thought known as Theonomy.

Grudem was very un-scholarly in his approach in dismissing theonomic principles when it comes to politics. His arguments were basically:

(1) Theonomy doesn't recognize a separation of church state (p. 66) a straw man argument if there ever was one - anyone who has actually read up on theonomy knows that there is a very clear separation of church and state (see Greg Bahnen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics, pp. 389-420).

(2) Some of the Old Testament laws are "severe" (with a negative connotation) and "should not be used as a pattern for governments today" (p. 84). I find this very odd since even the New Testament says that the Old Testament laws are "just" laws (Heb. 2:2) as well as "holy, righteous, and good" (Rom. 7:14) and that the Old Testament does display them as a pattern for a godly government (regardless of age - Deut. 4:8). Why he warrants Old Testament laws to be a bad pattern is beyond me.

(3) And finally, the all-so-impressive argument "most or all recognized leaders in the evangelical movement in the United States have clearly distanced themselves from [the theonomic] position" (p. 23) - as if that's even an argument. Oh how I wish this kind of logic was around when Martin Luther was teaching the Bible to the masses - "We probably shouldn't pay attention to what he's saying since most or all recognized leaders in the Roman Catholic Church have clearly distanced themselves from his position on justification." In reality, theonomy simply says God's Word is authoritative. But once we take that authority away it becomes a slippery slope.

Either way, in the case of Grudem in this book, for someone who opposes theonomy so strongly he did sure like to use the Old Testament when it was convenient to his case. But I feel that this only continues to show the world the inconsistency of the evangelical Christian faith in America. We want to evangelize but not make disciples (who wants to teach doctrine? we know they're going to heaven, they prayed the prayer). We want to use the Old Testament as a pattern for societal justice, but only if it's convenient to our own cause.

Example: there shouldn't be an estate tax, and the government shouldn't have so many regulations on the free market; but we shouldn't have such "severe" penalties for crimes like kidnapping, rape, murder, adultery, homosexuality, and we should be allowed to go anywhere in the world to spread democracy whether other countries like it or not.

This is truly Republican principles supposedly backed by the authority of Scripture. The problem is, as Grudem points out, Scripture does not authorize an estate tax nor intrusion in the economic marketplace. But contrary to what Grudem supposes, neither does it authorize a nation the normative prerogative in policing the world. Yet it does authorize “severe” (although the Bible doesn’t call them severe but just (Deut. 4:8; Heb. 2:2) laws for crimes like kidnapping, rape, murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc.

Abandoning theonomic principles (that is, God’s Word should be the standard for ethical norms), Grudem’s main supposition behind his book seems to be whatever seems practical to him in light of what he particularly likes about Scripture or the way things work.

For instance, he likes the idea found in Scripture that education of children belongs to the parents and not to the state. So he presents a case for the option of homeschooling and private schooling (p. 247-248). Yet even then it’s just the “option” for those two - he seems okay with the government taking money from private citizens to support state-sponsored schools (p. 249-256).

But he also likes the idea of the government "enacting laws against the production, distribution, and sale of pornographic materials" (p. 242). While pornography is clearly wrong morally (Mt. 5:27-28), God's Word does not authorize the government to make laws restricting it's uncoerced adult production. That is not a Biblical view of government and its purpose - but since Grudem particularly likes the idea of laws restricting pornography, he upholds it as being “Politics According to the Bible.”

There were certainly some good parts in the book. If I wish to be fair (which I do), I must admit that. The best part for me personally was his research on the issues (massive references throughout the book), and his clear explanation of the government's separation of powers (or the separation that is supposed to be there) and how to get those powers back in balance.

But when the foundation is sand, the structure will fall (Mt. 7:24-27). And so while I do think it’s a good reference work, I certainly can’t endorse it as a book that is truly “Politics According to the Bible.”

[Jeff Noble · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had no idea this book would become such a compelling read. It’s BIG but I highly recommend it for all Christians. When people say they “don’t like politics,” they don’t realize how naive that statement reveals them to be.

Our grasp of the multiple issues necessary for human flourishing, government, peace and development of society IS politics. To hate “politics” is to hate humanity. You can’t have one without the other. Having no government is not n option, especially since scripture clearly teaches that God established governments, laws and that they have foundational role in all of human society.

Grudem clearly communicates and distinctive biblical vision and perspective on issues as wide ranging as the economy, foreign affairs, war, racism, economic principles and justice.

This book will make you uncomfortable as you realize your uninvolvement or apathy has significantly contributed to the current mess of culture we find ourselves in. It will also remind you of our biblical hope in King Jesus who is above all earthly authority and through whom we can influence our current political leaders and policies.

[Sean McGowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was very useful. The section on the Supreme Court as well as the various discussions on the issues makes it well worth the read.

[Nanette · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Must Read. Period.

[Eric Abisror · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a very good book on politics. It was helpful to read all the way through, but can easily be a reference book as well.

[Ron Wroblewski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read the description of the book, it will tell you all you need to know. The author fulfills the description completely. I agree with 99% of his conclusions, only disagreeing with a few of his theological beliefs. Recommend for all Christians to read.

[William · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is always harder to build a position than tear it down, and none is harder than building a coherent political position, in my opinion. Nonetheless, this book has some serious faults as many people have already noted. Dr. Grudem offers a helpful outline of significant subjects with which to work. It offers a good range of important topics, and at least offers a position on each subject worthy of consideration. The topics chosen are legitimate, and is therefore a good list of topics for one to consider while establishing their own political views.
However, my biggest disagreement with the book is that it fails to seriously interact with other authors, viewpoints, and historical precedence, and lacks a reflection on hermeneutical method, perhaps leaving the author vulnerable to sociocultural factors that can twist biblical application. Along with other Grudem books, it continues to be a large methodological misfire, pulling texts from Scripture without consultation with others to check the author's biases, and calling "Biblical." There isn't a reference in the book about Grudem's Prolegomena. Evidence of this is the fact that it is curiously reflective of the Republican party's platforms, which is surprising since I imagine the Republican party has not given much credance to the Bible as of late. This is an issue with all Biblical-Theologians who do not consult with church history as a tool for guidance. Not enough credence is paid to the fact that they are products of their environment, and in their biblical reading, they will reflect their time and convictions, which is no different from eisegesis.
This book contains a string of topics not coherently associated or have a strong flow of ideas. For this reason, I would pair this book with extensive additional reading exploring the relationship between Christ and Culture, an historical perspective of the party system in the US, Constitution with the Federalist Writings (Anti-Federalist writings for bonus points) and a fuller treatment on economics, for beginners ("Poverty and Wealth" by Ronald Nash, "Socialism" by Mises). I like Grudem's book for some of the recommendations found in it, such as "The Death of Common Sense." After that, I would engage in the major philosophical political works of the western tradition (Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Calvin, and the enlightenment philosophers [Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke], John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, and some critics of classical liberalism, such as C. S. Lewis). I think reading some introductions to political philosophy would also greatly benefit the reader, as well. Consider, too, Abraham Kuyper, Russel Kirk, G. K. Chesterton, and Edmund Burke. Read a book on Natural Law ethics.
I believe it is necessary for the Christian to read extensively and beyond the Scriptures because, although the Scriptures are our sole ultimate authority, God has given grace to all fallen men, and has bequethed them beneficial and good ideas that have aided human governance until Christ's return. This was true in Genesis 4:17-22, and it is true now.
Ultimately, the most value this book offers, in my mind, is two: an introduction to ideas to the complete political novice, and as a case study into how the naively biblicist twenteeth-century mind reasons.

-My seperate additional thought on politics in general and unrelated to the book-

The political genre is a serious subject whose worst student is the lazy mind. The political genre can feel like an endless pile of books and writings that must eventually be lined up with current events. This can feel demoralising to the student who has limited capacity to read. Nonetheless, it should be encouraged to read politics broadly. It is a wholesome project and a lifelong process. Don't do it alone, for it is a burden too heavy to bear.
God speed.

[Chase Austin · Rating 5 out of 5]

"I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)

As citizens of a democratic nation it is our civic duty to be well-informed on the pressing issues at hand, so that our decisions or votes convey our personal beliefs of what we would have the government accomplish or not accomplish. As a Social Studies teacher this is how I explain civic duty to my students, what I cannot share with my students is that I am an evangelical Christian and my faith in Jesus Christ as well as obediently following the bible, the inerrant word of God directs me on not only how I live my life but also how I vote and participate in our government.

Starting with Matthew 22:20-21, Dr. Grudem uses scripture to clearly explain and persuade what the bible says and how it should be properly applied to past and current issues such as abortion, role of government, National Defense, proper scope or limit of government, the environment, education, the economy, homosexual "marriage", taxation and much much more.

This is an important book for believers and non-believers alike, one of the arguments that is used over and over again in this book is that using reasonable persuasion regarding a topic is not the same as forcing your beliefs on someone. In fact in a democracy, conversation and persuasion are effective tools for change and hopefully this book will offer sound edification and persuasion for anyone who turns its pages.

[Adam · Rating 2 out of 5]

A Review of Wayne Grudem’s Attempts to be Comprehensive

Politics is a very broad subject which allows for a great deal of disagreement. Likewise, the Christian faith has many values that are unique to individuals and groups. Combining the two is not always easy, and it certainly does not make for precise clarification. Each system presents a unique set of biases which have a tendency to taint the other. Understanding what the Bible teaches about politics ought to be a great concern for Christians. The challenge then, is to be willing to examine our preconceptions and not allow them to be determined for us.

I was mislead in my initial approach to reading this book. Perhaps it was Peter Sanlon’s review in The Gospel Coalition’s Themelios in which he called Grudem a Libertarian. Or maybe it was because Voddie Baudham recommended it in his endorsement of Ron Paul. I would wager to say that neither of them actually read the book because it would clearly clash with their statements and positions.

Wayne Gruden is a theologian, professor, and author of several books, but most widely known for his book on “Systematic Theology.” He admits upfront that he is not a political journalist, and that his approach is slanted from a conservative mindset. As a relatively trusted resource among evangelicals, I can understand why people would turn to him on such a subject, but one thing is clear, he is not an authority on political matters. He may even be overestimating his attempts by thinking his principles apply across cultures and party lines.

“Politics According to the Bible – A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture” is Grudem’s attempt in creating a resource for Christians in understanding and interacting with government. Written in three sections, the first lays out a thorough explanation of how Christians approach the balance of faith and politics. He then develops a biblical worldview that addresses many of the passages where the Bible addresses politics. The second section deals with particular issues relating to a wide range of topics most specifically focused on political policies. In the final section he addresses the culture of politics and how it works in the US.

The premise that a book can address every issue in politics according to the Bible is rather bold. It comes along with a wave of thought that everything Christians involve themselves in somehow needs to be related to biblical principles. Grudem points out in his introduction that much of what he has to say cannot be supported biblically. “I am certainly not claiming that the Bible also supports all the facts I cite about the world today.” With this admission, Grudem explains three standards he used in forming his premises: Biblical certainty, broader principles, and an appeal to facts. In reality, what he does is substitute broader principles for his presuppositions and an appeal to facts as philosophical arguments. If it were a cake recipe, the philosophical notions would be the flour, his presuppositions would be the sugar, and the biblical principles would be the baking powder. Hardly the comprehensive book it is selling itself to be. Certainly this can’t be avoided, and I wouldn’t even attempt to write a book on politics suggesting that everything had Scriptural support, but the issue I take with this claim is Grudem’s response that he is not going to distinguish between these three. Instead, he leaves that up to the reader to determine if he is right. But what, then, is the purpose of a comprehensive work claiming biblical affirmation? This allows Grudem to present his views to a Christian audience without the strenuous effort of explaining his premises. He can make an emotionally charged case without Scriptural support and rest assured that he had warned his readers he would do so.

While claiming to be comprehensive, the book is 600 pages long, I feel he has failed to fully address the full spectrum of ideas. Section one is exhaustive in the sense that it addresses the wide spectrum of evangelical positions, but it is the only section where he fully expounds on opposing views. Once you get into the second section, making up the majority of the book, Grudem’s views are narrow and slanted. Instead of making the effort to explain every angle, he writes directly to his audience. Some of his arguments are solid and can be supported, but most of them are narrowly guided by his political slant.

Grudem’s conclusions could better be described as the typical evangelical default position. The reader really needs to be aware of the very real problem of confirmation bias. Grudem does not make a special effort to explain his positions to those who would disagree with his premises. Instead, he writes directly to an audience that already agrees with him. I even got the impression that many of his points were being read back into the text instead of coming from a biblical perspective. This is a dangerous method in developing a political worldview that most people won’t notice as long as they agree with them. In this way, I cannot stress enough how destructive this is in creating a sound, theological worldview.

In the end, “Politics According to the Bible” is a mix bag of common sense, conservative values, and totalitarian ideals. Though written from a conservative perspective suggesting limited government, several of his religious convictions are allowed to seep into his political perspective and influence his decision in a totalitarian way. Even though he addresses where socialism and totalitarianism are wrong, he is not able to see where he crosses that line himself. This is another major problem we are facing today because the conservative side alleges that they are fighting for limited government, but in reality, they only want to limit it in certain areas. Many of their attacks on the liberal system can be made against them as well for different policies. This is obviously not something that Grudem addresses in the book. The two parties in the system are more alike than they are willing to admit.

I was prompted on several occasions while reading through this book to write complete essays in contradiction to Grudem’s positions. (Maybe I still will through the coming month. You can start looking forward for those.) In many cases he uses bad information, relies on traditional values, and assumes the reader agrees with his premise. He quotes Aristotle, a totalitarian, on defining marriage. He uses gross logical fallacies to build his argument on national defense. Some of what he says is completely accurate, particularly about the environment and special interest groups. But in other areas he contradicts himself when suggesting that the public school system is flawed and then presenting how he would fix it without actually restructuring it. Furthermore, He wrote this several years ago before current events that would contradict several things he said. He suggest that nuclear power plants present little to no risk as a form of energy. Something I think he would retract in light of the tragedy in Japan. He supported Mitt Romney in the 2008 nomination, and he makes a special effort to attack Ron Paul. In many ways, this book already has an expiration date and it is already a couple years old.

Initially, I thought I would be able to recommend this book as a resource with some reservations. I assumed it would be a scholarly attempt to paint a wide picture of where Christians can see the full spectrum of politics according to the Bible. Sadly, I was greatly disappointed in the process which he uses to determine his convictions. It’s not that we disagree that bothers me, but how he draws many of his conclusions and fails to point out their limitations.

Grudem’s thoughts represent an older generation of conservative values which are not being translated into contemporary language. There is a major shift taking place in the next generation of the conservative party, and Grudem’s views are antiquated. It’s not that he is wrong, or that his concerns are not longer relevant, but that his method in presenting them does not speak to the people who will become the next leaders in our generation. It is like writing an instruction manual for those about to retire. For this reason, I won’t recommend this book, even as a resource guide. There are much better resources and they don’t have to carry the name of Christian or biblical in order to be trusted as authorities. So, with sadness, I can’t recommend this book.

Check out my book reviews every Wednesday at worthyofthegospel.com

[Alan Ibbetson · Rating 5 out of 5]

General comments:
I love Dr. Grudem. I rarely see things in the same way as him theologically, politically, or really in any way. But when he writes on a topic I am going to read it. His books are organized, logical, and comprehensive. This sounds like a low bar for what a book should be but most theologians can't muster any of those three let alone all of them. When you read Dr. Grudem you will gain access to the relevant positions, a great bibliography, a thoughtful approach, and all of it from someone that is unapologetic in his commitment to biblical inerrancy. This is why I love his systematic theology book even though I am on the opposite end of so many of his beliefs.

Book comments:
Let's start with some labeling. Dr. Grudem is a neoconservative in general. I am a paleoconservative in general. However, if you want to know what the neoconservative position is then this is a great resource. The book came out in 2010 and it is amazing how time will shatter some political positions. Dr. Grudem no longer teaches or I would sign up for one of his classes just to ask him how the last 15 years have changed his positions in this book. (My last class with him was in 2019 I believe. He often talks about what updates he will do to his books but this book and the topics in it we did not spend much time on in class) This book seems quaint in so much of what he says, especially on the topics of gender, sexuality, abortion, etc. These are some of the areas that I agree with him most in principle on (not on the solutions) but I kept saying, "Oh, that's cute!" Fifteen years of an all out assault by the alphabet people have surely disabused most neoconservatives on how they handled these issues. I would like to talk to him today and see how his tactics would change. One thing I got to give to the wicked is that they doesn't sit back and take the day off. They work hard to destroy anything good. It is stunning how far they have moved the culture in the last 15 years since this was written. Keep in mind, this book is pre-Obergefell, pre-Roe v Wade overturn, etc. I think the neoconservative approach to these issues was just appallingly weak. Trump is not a paleoconservative exactly but is much closer and his approach has just been a welcome relief form the limp-wrist, weak-knee approach of the neoconservatives.

I was surprised by his stance on Israel. I mean, don't get me wrong, he is definitely very pro-Israel. But he was willing to admit some mistakes that they have made and that we should not support everything they do. He believes that when they are wrong the US should exert as much influence as we can to cause them to change. Most neoconservatives can not ever admit that Israel is anything other than perfect. Again, I would love to talk to him now that we are several years on from the October 7th attacks.

Grudem shines in Part 1 (chapters 1-5). This was by far his best work in the book but I understand that the other parts were necessary for what he was trying to accomplish. I believe everyone should read the first 5 chapters at least. The others are good as a resource when and if you ever want to know about those topics.

[Katie Marschner · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent resource. Grudem literally writes about every subject imaginable when it comes to politics. He does an excellent job making his points Biblical.

There were a couple things I think he got wrong. One being the gospel. He has a much broader view of the gospel than I do...believed the gospel is something that we do rather than something Christ had fully accomplished.

The other thing I differ with him on is his view of Israel. He is not a dispensationalist, so naturally his view of Israel's position today would differ from mine. He believes that God's covenants to Israel transferred to the church, and the church has replaced Israel as God's covenant people. However, he still holds a very high view of Israel and believes nations should still support Israel. His reasoning is just different from where I land on that topic.

Abortion, homosexuality, capital punishment, tariffs, personal injury lawsuits, borders, role of government, foreign policy, judges, rule of law, the supreme court etc are all covered in this book, as well as numerous other topics.

I listed to the audio version of this book. It was read well, however, I wish I had a hard copy. It would be much easier to find the topics i wanted to freshen up on again later with a physical copy of this book. The audio version does not have chapter headings at all, just chapter numbers which will make it hard to find topics later.

I definitely recommend this one if you are interested in politics at all. He does a great job looking at political issues through the lense of the Bible.

[Stacia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book! I only wish there would be a revised version that could be released as A LOT has changed in our country's politics since the book was published over 10 years ago!

I highly recommend this book to all Christians, even if just using it as a reference to be referred to in pieces. It is well researched with 100's of footnotes and a plethora of Bible verses to support his reasoning.

[Marco · Rating 2 out of 5]

Não gostei do livro. Na verdade esperava mais. O livro, além de ser bastante introdutório, apresenta um visão cristã da política pouco bíblica, assumindo uma visão muito americanizada ou republicana dos assuntos. Somado a isso, o livro também apresenta algumas ideias socialistas, bastantes perigosas.

Este é o tipo de livro escrito por um bom teólogo, mas que têm mais boas intenções do que conhecimento do assunto. Política não é a praia do Grudem e este livro é a prova disso.

[Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Much more politics than Bible. (Will elaborate later).

[Jordan Mills · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great, a bit too conservative for my enjoyment, but still great

[Bryce Beale · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a political conservative, there is not much in this large tome I would not consent to. It was written in 2010 and so most of the illustrations and concerns are drawn from that context.

Politics has been on every pastor's mind--really, everybody's mind--this past year. How should a Christian think about politics, what is the intersection of fatih and politics, and how do I interact with those I disagree with politically? For that reason, I thought the conclusion of Grudem's book its most helpful part. He is realistic about the future, but also optimistic (in a bit of a charismatic way, but I can look past that).

Grudem does address one question that has been burning on my mind and on the minds of many other moderate conservatives in the church: does the Republican party basically overlap with the Christian faith? Grudem answers that while he does at times disagree with the Republican party (for example, on its overspending), almost every major political view he has formed from the Bible aligns with the Republicans, not the Democrats.

I don't entirely disagree, yet I don't entirely agree either. It seems to me that before 2016, the Republican party could claim the moral high ground on most issues and therefore an overlap between Christianity and the Republican party felt more tenable. Four years of an immoral Republican president--with many really great policies, I must add!--has unsettled many younger evangelicals on the conservative side of things. How closely can I align my faith with the Republican party when it too, although it excels in several important moral areas like abortion and marriage, is the sort of thing that can produce and support and defend and loyally follow a leader who is more-than-usually materialistic, proud, and sexually immoral?

Some might hear this as advocacy for believers joining the Democratic Party--but it is definitely not that. The moral failings of the Democrats have not changed, they have only worsened with time. That party still, within its very platform, fights for the death of the unborn and the advancement of sexual rebellion. I also think the economic leanings of the Democratic Party are fairly disastrous, like Grudem does.

But where does that leave me? In a two-party, adversarial system of government, I find myself mostly aligned with the Republican worldview and set of policies, but not completely. It is a generalization to say that Republicans remind me of the Pharisees of Jesus' day, while Democrats remind me of the prostitutes and tax collectors, but there is something to that generalization. Jesus' politcal view was summarized as, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). And that is the most important point: if I compromise on a moral issue for the sake of my own Party's stance on any given issue, then I have given to Caesar what belongs to God. Or again, if I begin to align so closely with my Party that it becomes difficult to distinguish between it and the voice of God, then I have bowed the knee to Caesar, not God.

Lastly, I think the church has been hit particularly hard on the issue of race because of our national history. Issues like abortion are quite clear and easy--it is wrong to kill an innocent person, end of story. But moral, political, and even--I grieve to say it!--theological conservatives in the history of the United States largely got race/ethnicity wrong. There were exceptions, but not enough. Very sadly, many theological liberals in the North had a better view of slavery than their more orthodox Southern counterparts. Spurgeon is one of those exceptions who condemned slavery, but I have to admit that if he had lived in the Southern United States instead of London, I don't know that he could have continued as a preacher (he received death threats and his books were burned in the South).

To take my cue from Grudem's optimism, I do think this period of intense Christian political crisis has resulted in far more discussion about an issue we previously took for granted, and therefore will help the true church to hammer out a healthy, orthodox view on race/ethnicity, much like the early church spent centuries and rivers of ink trying to understand a right view of the Trinity. May God our Shepherd give us all the humility to follow his word contra mundum and contra nos when necessary, and the hope to persevere in uncertain times.

[Don · Rating 2 out of 5]

Fundamentally, the title of this work is a misnomer, and I say this not as a liberal or progressive but as someone who is more conservative than Grudem. My primary objection is not to the views themselves, most of which I agree with, as much as to the quality (or lack thereof) of the argumentation. I believe Grudem's methodology is fundamentally flawed. Earlier Christian thinkers would have left many of these issues to prudence depending on the particular conditions of a nation and time, and would have addressed the other issues far more rigorously. Since the Bible does not directly address many, if not most of the political issues covered in this book, Grudem often presents a list of tangentially related Bible verses or concepts, and uses phrases like "it seems to me", or "I believe", before presenting his own opinion. There is little effort made to systematically or logically demonstrate that the conclusions actually logically flow from the biblical premises given. To give one of countless examples, Grudem argues that while semi-automatic firearms should be legal, machine guns should be illegal. Regardless of the merits of that view, this is not in any meaningful sense "according to the Bible." Could it be a wise policy? Perhaps, but a seminary professor has no special knowledge or ability to determine that.

It's unfortunately quite obvious that it is the Overton Window of 2010s American (neo-)conservatism, not the Bible, that is guiding this book. Grudem has clear ideological commitments to pluralism and democracy as universal moral goods. Grudem's argument for democracy as a Biblical principle is remarkably weak, as well as inconsistent. He inconsistently dismisses historical examples of monarchies and empires in the Bible as purely descriptive while taking as prescriptive alleged examples of democracy, including the plurality of apostles in the Church. The "image of God" is used as an argument for democracy, and against monarchy. I disagree that the image of God conveys a right to political power, and as a traditional conservative, I believe the Bible does not prescribe any particular form of government, as the government must fit the character and conditions of each people group and historical circumstance. However, the problem not my personal disagreement, it is that Grudem does not demonstrate his conclusions, he simply engages in a series of assertions and non sequiturs (a recurring theme even in areas where I personally agree with his conclusions.) On religious pluralism and neutrality, Grudem argues in chapter 3 that "civil government ... should not promote one religion over another". This is an assertion that is contained nowhere in Scripture, but rather reflects modern American sensibilities. My disagreement with this assertion is again less important than the fact that Grudem doesn't make any attempt to show why this "principle" is true - he simply assumes it. Grudem suggests that schools should invite "representatives of various religious groups to open a school day or a school week with prayers." In this case, as in many others, we see the real commitment: modern Western religious pluralism, with theological window-dressing.

The numerous inconsistencies in Grudem's argumentation aptly demonstrate why this book cannot fairly be called "Politics According to the Bible". Two examples, out of many, many, possibilities, are:
- In chapter 8, Grudem argues for a school voucher program. But in the very next chapter, Grudem argues for free-market capitalism by claiming, "nothing in the Bible’s teachings on the role of government would give the government warrant to take over ownership or control of private businesses." By this logic, where do "the Bible's teachings" give the government the authority to use tax revenues for a school voucher program?
- While Grudem dismisses theonomy and states that the Mosaic political laws are not binding on the nations today, he then cherry-picks these laws on multiple occasions to argue for various modern policies. For example, Grudem uses the Old Testament laws which required all to sacrifice animals to the Lord as an argument against tax exemptions for the poor. (Chapter 9). Grudem also argues that the Supreme Court has taken too much power to itself. But because there has to be a "biblical" reason against this, Grudem argues that judicial activism is wrong not just because of the U.S. Constitution or because of the immorality of particular decisions, but also because judges in the Mosaic polity did not have the authority to make law.

The chapters on foreign policy and national defense may be the most deeply flawed in the book. Grudem's analysis of the principles of just war theory is a decent introduction. However, the applications again reveal the problem with his methodology. Grudem argues in favor of an interventionist, neoconservative foreign policy, and strongly endorses the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which he argued turned these countries into democracies (this did not age well). Grudem, due to his assumption that democracy is a universal moral good, argues that America has a responsibility to use military power to secure democracy around the world. A seminary professor being in support of foreign wars, foreign aid, and foreign entanglement is one thing. Misusing cherry-picked Scripture to support a predetermined ideology is completely different. As a representative example of this, Grudem claims, "I see no reasons from the teachings of the Bible that would lead me to support Ron Paul’s noninterventionism. In fact, at one point God, through the prophet Obadiah, rebuked the nation of Edom for its “noninterventionist” policy with regard to Israel." Honestly, the discussion of the CIA made me chuckle a bit. Grudem quotes historical narratives concerning David using spies, and then bemoans criticism of the CIA as unpatriotic, and, we would assume, sinful (this also did not age well). We see many other examples of this. Grudem starts with his conclusions - neoconservatism - and then finds some biblical principle or out-of-context Bible verse to support it.

Across many other issues, from climate change to Social Security to immigration (where Grudem simply recites a list of establishment Republican policies, namely border security, more "skilled" immigrants, and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants) to foreign policy, Grudem consistently starts with ideological conclusions and retrofits biblical references to support them. (However, in some areas, Grudem just makes assertions without even trying to quote Scripture, which is probably preferable to misusing it, but certainly further demonstrates that the title of this book is misleading). Even tariffs are a matter of theological doctrine according to Grudem, who claims that "a government that seeks to be faithful to God’s purpose in Romans 13:4... should seek to reduce tariffs and eventually eliminate them altogether and thus bring lower prices and more freedom and more “good” to the people of a nation." The ideological assumptions of this statement are obvious.

Grudem's penultimate chapter is a virtually unqualified endorsement of the Republican Party - specifically, its establishment wing, as he criticizes non-interventionists like Ron Paul and those "hyper-conservatives" who oppose a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. It is quite interesting that the allegedly universal political platform provided by Scripture just so happens to perfectly align with what the Republican Party happened to believe in the 2010s.

The only bright spots are areas where Grudem deals with general principles, or issues like abortion and euthanasia which are black and white issues from a theological perspective. But outside of that, Grudem's "Politics According to the Bible" cannot fairly be called such, and contains countless examples of circular reasoning, cherry-picked Scripture, inconsistent hermeneutics and internal contradictions, and personal opinion.

[John Hayward · Rating 5 out of 5]

Think this is the best book I've read so far this year. From the author who 'condensed' the complexities of the bible into the 1291-page 'Systematic Theology' comes this indispensable 624-page guide to 'Politics - According to the Bible'. Claiming to be 'A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture', and thus going further than Walter Kaiser's 256-page guide to biblical ethics 'What Does the Lord Require?', Wayne Grudem explains why the gospel calls believers to political engagement, what biblical principles should inform our engagement and then systematically applies these to about 60 contemporary political challenges. Though I have much exposure to American thinking, I still found the book left me with a better understanding of the reasons why so much Christian political thought in America often appears to emphasise abortion and same sex issues. Such concerns--which are increasingly widespread in Britain and could appear quaint if they weren't so irrelevant to the majority of the population--are evident, for instance, in the section on specific issues, which begins with chapters on the protection of life, marriage, and the family before getting to more mainstream concerns such as the economy and the environment; and in the subsection on 'Incest, Adultery, and Homosexuality', which in fact has just one sentence each on incest and adultery, whereas the overwhelming focus of sex outside marriage 'according to the bible' is categorically on heterosexual promiscuity, not homosexuality. So, while it is true that 'governments significantly influence people's moral convictions and behavior and the moral fabric of a nation' and it is right that we make the case for 'what is helpful or harmful to individuals and to society', we 'must also remember that inwardly transformed people are needed if we are ever going to see a transformed society. Merely passing good laws and having good government will never be enough to change a society.' That said, clearly the 'equality' lobby have brought such attention upon themselves in that homosexuals have sought special rights and protections under the law over and above the protections that they have enjoyed in law equally with all citizens. Grudem eloquently demonstrates this in his section on how the nine unelected members of the US Supreme Court have recently appropriated the power not only to interpret and judge according to the nation's laws and Constitution, but also to make new laws--a section that has worrying parallels with what is reportedly happening with Britain's Law Lords and Supreme Court. Here he persuasively argues that the question of who rules the US and appoints its judges is the most important issue facing the nation. While he acknowledges that 'the laws that God gave to Israel can still provide useful information for understanding the purposes of government and the nature of good and bad government', it sometimes feels that since 'we cannot do this directly, and we can only do it with much difficulty,' he all too easily looks to the key texts of Genesis 9:5-6, Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 for an answer. However, some would have hoped for more engagement with the bible's rich social legislation, perhaps particularly concerning the biggest issue currently facing Western politicians - namely, debt and the economy. So, Grudem misses an opportunity when he concludes his section on the recent recession without having explored the bible's many warnings against debt and the charging of interest or the possible modern significance of old testament legislation on periodic forgiveness of debts. On the other hand, others might feel he too often refers to the economic impact of policies, whereas a more biblical perspective might have more often analysed their relational impact and the extent to which they promote love of God and neighbour. On taxation, he makes the case well that so-called 'progressive' taxes are neither fair nor biblical. He also observes that 'redistribution of income (which is different from basic support of the very poor) is not part of punishing evil and rewarding good, and it is not part of impartially enforcing justice; rather, it is carrying out an additional social agenda that the Bible does not support.' Yet, given that history teaches that spontaneous voluntary charitable giving cannot guarantee a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of all, some will doubtless recall Jim Wallis when he wrote, 'the question "whatever became of the common good?" must be a constant religious refrain to political partisans.' Others may find Grudem guilty of the same mistake of which Wallis accuses the Left--namely, disconnecting personal faith from public politics--and wonder what significance biblical teaching about justice, mercy and righteousness (with all that means for right relationships) might hold for the vocation of those called to be our representatives, standard-bearers and role-models. Helpfully, the author regularly lists and responds to objections to his positions and includes arguments from reason and experience apart from the bible. Occasionally though, this high standard of critical engagement is lacking. For instance, in arguing in favour of capital punishment for murder, he cites evidence suggesting the punishment has a deterrence effect, but makes no mention of opposing evidence that the murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained steadily and increasingly lower than the rate in states with the death penalty. His perspective on the Iraq War is also less than comprehensive. Less significantly, his praise of 'larger, safer, more comfortable cars' is equally silent on safety issues related to SUVs and younger, less experienced or riskier drivers. On most points, however, his analysis typically presents a strong case. Overall, Grudem has given believers an invaluable resource to encourage greater engagement in the church's mission to be salt and light in the world. He could have identified the wider variety of biblical themes and principles drawn upon by believers across the political and faith spectrum, even where he judges these not to be relevant to what the bible defines as the purposes of civil government. We on this side of the Atlantic examining the political relevance of the bible might have hoped for a more inclusive approach, as in the academic 'Jubilee Manifesto', theoretical 'God and Government' or more practical 'Votewise Now!' After all, as he rightly quotes, 'God is not a Republican or a Democrat' or, as we might put it, no political party has a monopoly on God and religion. Exploring to what extent the bible offers a 'third way' to both free market capitalism and socialism, rather than just critiquing the latter, would also have been good. As it is, 'Politics - According to the Bible' at times appears quite partisan, although Grudem addresses even this concern in a concluding chapter, in which he encourages readers to read Wallis' 'God's Politics' for a contrasting worldview, to read the bible, and then to decide 'which arguments are the most persuasive.' Even those who disagree with Grudem's conclusions will be forced to think hard about why they believe what they do. Ultimately, he seeks to show how Christians should live their entire lives continually trusting in God, obeying him and living lives filled with 'good works'.

[Braley Chambers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honestly, most of this was better than I thought it would be.
However, at points it definitely seemed like Grudem was just trying to baptize the GOP agenda and call it “Politics according to the Bible”.

[Bruno Matias · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uma excelente introdução. Recomendo!

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great reference book for those wishing to connect biblical faith and politics

[Jonathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The buyer should beware: for virtually all of the issues Grudem lines up with the conservative Republican side. He states this unapologetically upfront in the book's introduction. He believes he is siding with Republican policies simply because they align with the teachings and principles in Scripture. Christians who are politically liberal will find this a hard pill to swallow. Nevertheless, Grudem does give arguments and the politically liberal Christians will need to deal with those arguments (and his counter-arguments to liberal arguments) and not just go ad hominem or give a knee-jerk response. On several occasions now I've had conversations with Christian democrats who are too dismissive of Grudem's book. They read a section here or there, find out Grudem takes the conservative side, and dismiss the book as moronic. They end up repeating arguments that Grudem interacts with and refutes in the book or else they end up misrepresenting what Grudem is arguing or has said. To give just one example, one person, call him "Bob", said Grudem was ignorant of an issue because he (Grudem) didn't mention a certain person in the book. Turns out Grudem does mention that person. Bob just hadn't read the book carefully enough.

For the *overall* quality of the book I would give it four stars. Overall, the book is a good presentation of a Christian approach to politics both in theory and practice. It will provide a great reference for someone who wants to know why a Christian should care about politics, what type of political values the Bible might support, or what a Christian (or perhaps in some cases simply a generic conservative) argument might be on any given issue, from CAFE standards on automobile mileage to faith based organizations or any other political topic you might imagine. The book can be used in this reference sort of way by both conservatives and liberals. Want to know why those crazy Christian conservatives think we should be able to have guns? Want to know how they might try to justify that in light of the Bible? Turn to page 226.

Nevertheless, I've given the book only three stars. Why? Due to some poor arguments and a question regarding the book's title in relation to the nature of arguments that occupy a large section of the book I have to give it three stars. These aren't major faults in the book, I think the question regarding the book's title is a bigger issue than some of the poor arguments, but they do detract from the value of the book nonetheless. Truth be told, I'd give the book 3.5 stars if that were possible. As it is, I give it three.

To give just one example of a poor argument: early in the book Grudem addresses the question of whether all earthly governments are evil and demonic. He first sets up the case that governments *are* evil. In the process, he cites a reason given by Greg Boyd: the devil claims to have authority over all earthly kingdoms in his temptation of Jesus in Luke 4. To counter this reason, Grudem points out that Jesus said in John 8:44 that "there is no truth in [Satan]." Thus, Grudem concludes, "...we have a choice: Do we believe Satan's words that he has the authority of all earthly kingdoms, or do we believe Jesus' words that satan is a liar and the father of lies?" (36). But this looks like a stretched understanding of John 8:44. It doesn't seem plausible to understand John 8:44 as saying that all propositions spoken by Satan are false. Can Satan not say that he is Satan or that I am human or that Jesus' name is Jesus or that 2 + 2 = 4 or that there is a God or that God has spoken or that there was such a thing as a tree in the garden of Eden? In which case, how did he tempt Eve to eat from a tree if it involved Satan implicitly asserting the tree's existence? Therefore, I don't think that John 8:44 alone will give us reason to dismiss Satan's claim to authority in Luke 4.

As I said, this is just one example. There are others that I think are poor for different reasons. But I don't think these poor arguments dominate the book or even take up a large minority. For the most part, Grudem gives good arguments although never as rigorous as they could be if more space were given to the issue in question.

Finally, I said there was a question regarding the book's title in relation to the nature of arguments that occupy a large portion of the book. Grudem states in the introduction that he will be using three types of arguments: arguments that draw from direct teaching on Scripture, arguments that draw from broader principles drawn from Scripture, and, finally, arguments drawn from facts in the world (see page 17). The question arises from the third type of argument and whether it is appropriate to call your book _Politics *According to the Bible*_ when it addresses issues like what sort of regulations should auto-manufacturers be held to or issues regarding farm subsidies. These are issues that can be tied back to the Bible only in the broadest of senses and, as Grudem himself admits, there is a lot of room for disagreement here. Granted that we could tie the issue of farm subsidies to some biblical principles, would anyone think it appropriate to title a book _Farm Subsidies According to the Bible_? I doubt it.

Nevertheless, Grudem does try to keep the biblical principles in mind and I think the majority of the book concerns itself enough with the first and second type of arguments that the presence of this third category of arguments doesn't totally ruin the credibility of the book's title.

Whether you are politically liberal or conservative you'll want to pick this book up and, if not read it all the way through from front to back, use it as a reference. If you are a liberal and you use the book in a reference manner you'll want to be careful about arriving at hasty conclusions or generalizations. Some issues are taken up more than once in different sections. Some of the arguments Grudem makes relate back to earlier arguments in different sections. The introduction should be read in its entirety... some of the problems that politically liberal Christians expressed to me would have been cleared up just by reading the intro.

[José Matheus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Assim como o outro livro que li dele, esse é bastante introdutório. Como li a versão em português, talvez não tenha percebido tanto o aspecto tão proeminentemente político (Republicano, no caso) do livro, apesar de ser possível sim encontrar varios traços disso. Tem conclusões duvidosas, e um embasamento não muito consistente. Gosto da parte sobre influência expressiva no governo, entretanto, apesar de discordar de umas pequenas coisas. É essencial recuperarmos essa perspectiva de influência, e por isso as 3 estrelas. Não vejo grandes problemas no 1º capítulo, o da influência positiva é bom. O dos princípios acho as discussões rasas, e o de Cosmovisão, complicado. O apêndice sobre avivamento é difícil de ler.

[Noah McMillen · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title of this book is a bit misleading, though Grudem is clearer in his intention for the book within the writing itself. Grudem is not laying out what the Bible clearly teaches on politics but instead lays out basic principles from the Bible and then argues for his perspective on many key political issues based on these Biblical principles, adding pragmatic arguments and data for support, mostly aligning with the Republican Party. As a result, I strongly disagree with him on some points, like immigration laws, but agree with him more often than not.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of the book, “Basic Principles,” and I praise the method in which Grudem argued his views, even in areas where I disagree with him.

[C Clark · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is huge. It takes over 31 hours audibly. In the first 5 chapters Wayne Grudem lays the foundation for the impacts Christians should have on government from a biblical viewpoint. Definitely read these chapters. Chapters 6 -15 deal with specific issues. I can see where reading through these chapters is beneficial to get an overview but I could also foresee that people would come back to them as a resource when needed. Chapters 16-18 are his concluding thoughts. The book is from 2010 so there are many examples that could be updated but the ones given are known and support his statements.

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Grudem gives compelling arguments, supported by Scripture, for many social issues that Christians struggle with these days. This book is very long! I only got to Part 2 - Chap. 6 before it expired at the library. I listened to the audio version and don't care much for the narrator. But my husband thought he was good.

[Mauricio Alberti · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ótimo livro! O livro é muito conciso e claro sem omitir informações importantes, e tem diversos trechos bíblicos e exemplos pra ilustrar os pontos de vista que o autor defende. Livro excelente pra ser lido em uma época de tanta idolatria a políticos e em que a verdade parece depender tanto de opiniões!

[Sean · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book should only be read for research purposes on subjects such as “how the ‘Christian worldview’ has caused some to believe they’re experts on subjects that are completely outside their grasp” or “the lengths to which Evangelicals have unwittingly swallowed whole every Republican taking point of the last 40 years.” Beyond these purposes, the book should be avoided. Zero out of five stars.