Ethics Related Books

Logos already has some ethics books, but I'm not familiar with any of them and don't know whether they are worth the money or not.

However, I think these would be good titles to add (from various perspectives):

Kingdom Ethics by Stassen & Gushee
Evangelical Ethics by J.J. Davis
Theonomy in Christian Ethics by Bahnsen
Theonomy, A Reformed Critique ed. Barker, William S. and W. Robert Godfrey
Five Views on Law and Gospel ed. Gundry (it would be nice to see a lot of the "Five Views" and "Four Views" books: predestination, foreknowledge, apologetics, etc.)
Christ & Culture Revisited by Carson

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George Somsel

Logos already has some ethics books, but I'm not familiar with any of them and don't know whether they are worth the money or not.

However, I think these would be good titles to add (from various perspectives):

Kingdom Ethics by Stassen & Gushee

Evangelical Ethics by J.J. Davis

Theonomy in Christian Ethics by Bahnsen

Theonomy, A Reformed Critique ed. Barker, William S. and W. Robert Godfrey

Five Views on Law and Gospel ed. Gundry (it would be nice to see a lot of the "Five Views" and "Four Views" books: predestination, foreknowledge, apologetics, etc.)

Christ & Culture Revisited by Carson

While they're at it, why not also Niebuhr's original Christ and Culture? Since he died in 1962, it isn't yet in the public domain so there would be an issue in getting permission to publish it.

David A. Peterson

Five Views on Law and Gospel ed. Gundry (it would be nice to see a lot of the "Five Views" and "Four Views" books: predestination, foreknowledge, apologetics, etc.)

John, I believe you are talking about the Counterpoints series, which is a Zondervan series, so it may be something we see....

<><

John Bowling

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/62660#Comment_62660

George, I thought about that... But Carson gives a review of Niebuhr and I would like to see those other books first.

David, actually IVP does several and Blackwell do several "Four Views" (and "Five") type books. So I'm not limiting it to the Counterpoint series, if that is exclusively Zondervan.

David A. Peterson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/62724#Comment_62724

IVP does several and Blackwell do several "Four Views" (and "Five") type books.

Thanks for the heads up, I had only been using the Counterpoint series...of course my print library isn't growing as fast as it use too, as I make the transition to LOGOS.

<><

MJ. Smith

(it would be nice to see a lot of the "Five Views" and "Four Views" books

Okay, what are "five views" and "four views"?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/62935#Comment_62935

(it would be nice to see a lot of the "Five Views" and "Four Views" books

Okay, what are "five views" and "four views"?

I can only speak regarding the book Revelation: Four Views. It has parallel comments from the historicist position, the preterist position, the futurist position and the idealist position.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/62935#Comment_62935

(it would be nice to see a lot of the "Five Views" and "Four Views" books

Okay, what are "five views" and "four views"?

Here are a few in already in Logos:

The Lord's Supper: Five Views http://www.logos.com/products/details/4530
Revelation: Four Views http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/REV4VIEWS
Perspectives Series (4 Vols.) http://www.logos.com/products/details/4644 includes these 4
Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity
Perspectives on Election: Five Views
Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: Five Views
Perspectives on Christian Worship: Five Views

I think there are a few more but can't remember the titles. I like them because they help me understand others' viewpoints.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/62952#Comment_62952

Thank you - I've purchased one to see what they are really like - they look very interesting.

David A. Peterson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/62952#Comment_62952

I like them because they help me understand others' viewpoints.

I also appreciate the opportunity the other side is given to rebut the position. It provides me an excellent overview prior to starting a position paper.

<><

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63065#Comment_63065

I like them because they help me understand others' viewpoints.

I also appreciate the opportunity the other side is given to rebut the position. It provides me an excellent overview prior to starting a position paper.

DP <><

It also helps me decide if I want to engage them on that issue of leave it be. [;)] Sometimes I discover a possible alternative explanation.

John Bowling

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63070#Comment_63070

Others are:

1. Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom

2. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views

3. Four Views on Free Will

5. Five Views on Apologetics

You really can't tell what the other books are going to be like based on any one of the books. For one thing, the books have different formats (maybe depending on the publisher). For example, FV on Apologetics gives each position with rejoinders and then surrejoinders are offered at the end of the book. FV on Free Will gives each position and then at the end rejoinders by the contributors are lumped together and there are no surrejoinders. With Divine Foreknowledge the format more closely follows FV on Apol. without the surrejoinders.

Also, their quality really depends greatly on who the contributors are and how they approach the subject. Sometimes they get the best in their respective fields and sometimes they don't.

For instance, the FV on Apologetics isn't that great as far as actually presenting five cogent views. Craig doesn't do a great job at laying out and defending the Classical Method. Someone like R.C. Sproul would have been much better, probably. Don't get me wrong, Craig says some great things, he just doesn't do great at laying out the distinctiveness of the Classical Method. He sounds more like a Reformed Epistemologists in many places. Also, Feinberg seems totally lost in his sections. He doesn't seem to grasp the other methods and so his critiques are misleading and his own presentation doesn't add a whole lot to the discussion. But all the other contributors do a very good job.

On the other hand, FV on Free Will does a great job at getting the best people for the respective positions. John Martin Fischer and Robert Kane are truly the top scholars for compatibilism and libertarianism respectively, same with Pereboom and Vargas. However, the lack of surrejoinders is disappointing.

And on yet another hand, Divine Foreknowledge: FV should have gotten someone better than Boyd to represent the Open Theist camp... he is way too philosophically naive. Someone like Hasker could have done a much better job. But David Hunt (not to be confused with Dave Hunt), Craig, and Helm are great... although Helm's approach to the subject was lacking and he could have presented a better case.

All this is to say that you have to take these books with a grain of salt. The contributors don't always give the best presentations of their position. Sometimes it's because they just happen to approach the subject poorly, sometimes it's just because they aren't the best in their field. Sometimes the format (surrejoinders etc.) could be improved.

These books are great for getting familiar with the *basics* of the respective positions and giving you an idea of how one might approach the subject, defend it, and attack it. And in that sense they should really be used as a springboard for further study. I certainly don't think one could reach any significant conclusions about a position from these books alone.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/63097#Comment_63097

All this is to say that you have to take these books with a grain of salt. The contributors don't always give the best presentations of their position.

Good point. The same problem can be found in the Anchor Yale Bible and other commentary series. Some works are stellar and others mediocre. I don't fault the publisher considering the contributors may have been the best who were willing to participate. I just don't want a writer skewing the perspective because he personally doesn't hold to it. (I don't want to read what Catholics believe written by a Baptist writer or what Pentecostals believe written by a Unitarian.)

And just because someone is good at presenting their perspective does not mean they are 100% correct in their view. (i.e. Karl Barth, Hugh Ross, Frank Schaeffer (son of the always correct Francis [;)]), & dare I say John Calvin & Alexander Campbell?) In contrast, many who hold to a correct interpretation are utterly lousy in their defense of it. As you say,

These books are great for getting familiar with the *basics* of the respective positions

MJ. Smith

Surely Stanley Hauerwas should be included. And for the Logos user mix What Does the Lord Require? by Walter Kaiser.