What do you think?
Rate this book
Political Revolution in the Reformed Tradition: A Historical and Biblical Critique
Though written thirty-five years ago as Sam Waldron’s ThM thesis, Political Revolution in the Reformed Tradition brings crucial perspective to guide the church and the Christian through perplexing ethical and societal questions that have emerged in the present day. Does the Bible support or prohibit political revolution? What did John Calvin, the founder of the Reformed tradition, believe on the topic of political insurrection, and did his thoughts line up with the Word of God? Does Romans 13 call us to obey the government blindly in all situations? What is the relationship between subordination to civil magistrates and obedience to the same authorities? You’ll find answers to these questions and more in this scholarly examination of the tension between living in the kingdom of God and, simultaneously, in the kingdom of man.
197 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 16, 2022
7 people are currently reading
21 people want to read
About the author
Sam Waldron
4 books2 followersDr. Sam Waldron was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids from 1977-2001 and taught at Trinity Ministerial Academy from 1981 to 1989. Leaving there in 2001, he pursued a PhD at Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. Having served as a pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Owensboro, Kentucky from 2005-2013, in 2013 he became one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, Kentucky. He also serves as President and Professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Sam has been married to his dear wife Charlene since 1975. They have five children and at last count 15 grandchildren—all of whom they love very much. Sam enjoys reading, weightlifting, walking, and spending time with his wife, children, and grandchildren.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 6, 2022
3.75 stars Ok, starting with the super nerdy stuff. I have loved the choice of paper. The thickness was super, marking wasn’t going through and/or showing on the other side. The little yellowish tint in the pages made it for a very pleasant read. Enjoyed the space at the bottom to write comments (4lines instead of the usual 3) and the extra blank page at the end of each chapter is wonderful in order to resume your thoughts on the chapter, and also at the beginning of the next one if one needs more space 😬. Finally the cover is awesome ,i still haven’t put the book back away i keep it lying here and there to see the cover.
The title is very important and also problematic. Political Revolution, it’s all about revolution, “By this is meant violent resistance against an existing civil order by those subordinate to it. In this definition the term violent is use of armed force…” point 5. P.7. The author isn’t allowing the possibility of unarmed and non-violent resistance,and doesn’t acknowledge any wiggling room in the term revolution, it is violent armed resistance, point final. But, I believe Jesus and the Apostles were revolutionist, they totally revolutionized their epoch, they turned the culture upside down, so much so, that people were losing business and wanted to kill hem.The Gospel message is a revolutionizing message. So that’s the problematic (adding to that the fact that, he seems (I wouldn’t want to put intentions into him) to equate theonomy to revolution.) That’s very important to keep in my in reading the book, for there will be time where you will totally agree, and totally disagree with a statement. Totally agree in the strict narrow definition sense, and totally disagree, as you understand to possibility of resistance and revolution outside of this definition.
The second part of the title : In the Reformed Tradition is, I believe, misleading, because he only considers Calvin for one and because Calvin is cited on both side of the debate. Which indicate to me that he wasn’t so black and white, wasn’t understood or was well balanced on the subject. The later seems to be the correct one as some of the quotations suggest. For e.g. on p.31 in a letter to Huguenot soldiery it is the use of arm that he object to. On p.32 in a letter to Sturm he’s displeased by the manner, because it was set about childishly. Chapter 3 was very confusing he claims that theocracy gave way to autocracy and make the case for the return of theocracy at the return of Christ when he establish His millennial kingdom. This is confusing because he calls himself a positive amillennialist, but p.95 says “Premillennialists have been right, therefore, to insist on a future, earthly reign.” It is also confusing because he quotes Jesus stating that the kingdom is here, the kingdom is already among you. It is nevertheless the most important and strongest chapter, one that should get theonomists to lift the foot off the gas pedal a little bit. Chapter 4 was the most disturbing one. Basically according to this chapter the German church was right in following along with Hitler, and the confessing church wrong. He makes a distinction between rebellion and disobedience, but fail to realize that disobedience is a form rebellion. I think that here he makes to same mistake as some theonomist and goes way to far. In the last chapter he makes the mistake of taking the most extreme as representatives of the whole. I think he forgot that we live in an ascending government, and fails to address it in the ‘thesis applied’. Finally, he accused Schaeffer of not distinguishing between different form of disobedience, yet doesn’t himself distinguish between different kind of rebellion/revolution.
Still not convince against a moderate theonomy
The title is very important and also problematic. Political Revolution, it’s all about revolution, “By this is meant violent resistance against an existing civil order by those subordinate to it. In this definition the term violent is use of armed force…” point 5. P.7. The author isn’t allowing the possibility of unarmed and non-violent resistance,and doesn’t acknowledge any wiggling room in the term revolution, it is violent armed resistance, point final. But, I believe Jesus and the Apostles were revolutionist, they totally revolutionized their epoch, they turned the culture upside down, so much so, that people were losing business and wanted to kill hem.The Gospel message is a revolutionizing message. So that’s the problematic (adding to that the fact that, he seems (I wouldn’t want to put intentions into him) to equate theonomy to revolution.) That’s very important to keep in my in reading the book, for there will be time where you will totally agree, and totally disagree with a statement. Totally agree in the strict narrow definition sense, and totally disagree, as you understand to possibility of resistance and revolution outside of this definition.
The second part of the title : In the Reformed Tradition is, I believe, misleading, because he only considers Calvin for one and because Calvin is cited on both side of the debate. Which indicate to me that he wasn’t so black and white, wasn’t understood or was well balanced on the subject. The later seems to be the correct one as some of the quotations suggest. For e.g. on p.31 in a letter to Huguenot soldiery it is the use of arm that he object to. On p.32 in a letter to Sturm he’s displeased by the manner, because it was set about childishly. Chapter 3 was very confusing he claims that theocracy gave way to autocracy and make the case for the return of theocracy at the return of Christ when he establish His millennial kingdom. This is confusing because he calls himself a positive amillennialist, but p.95 says “Premillennialists have been right, therefore, to insist on a future, earthly reign.” It is also confusing because he quotes Jesus stating that the kingdom is here, the kingdom is already among you. It is nevertheless the most important and strongest chapter, one that should get theonomists to lift the foot off the gas pedal a little bit. Chapter 4 was the most disturbing one. Basically according to this chapter the German church was right in following along with Hitler, and the confessing church wrong. He makes a distinction between rebellion and disobedience, but fail to realize that disobedience is a form rebellion. I think that here he makes to same mistake as some theonomist and goes way to far. In the last chapter he makes the mistake of taking the most extreme as representatives of the whole. I think he forgot that we live in an ascending government, and fails to address it in the ‘thesis applied’. Finally, he accused Schaeffer of not distinguishing between different form of disobedience, yet doesn’t himself distinguish between different kind of rebellion/revolution.
Still not convince against a moderate theonomy
April 26, 2022
Mixed feelings here. Parts I loudly "amen!" and other parts I massively disagree. The editing and formatting had many errors too.
August 18, 2024
Well constructed argument against revolution, full stop, though I'd have reservations.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews