A few question about the Pillar New Testament Commentary Series

I'm considering a package upgrade that includes the PNTC series. But I'm trying to build my library with some goals in mind. Two of those goals are explained below and I'm interested in how the PNTC series line up in regard to them.

I've spent a couple of hours trying to sort this out on the forum and via other internet searches but have not had great luck. Thanks in advance to all willing to share their thoughts and perspectives.

One goal is to keep some balance between Arminian and Calvinist resources, so... with no debate desired regarding these two positions on election, I would like some help addressing the following questions.

Does the PNTC series as a whole have a definite lean one way or the other? If so, which way, how strongly, and how does the series present and treat the opposing view?

In addition to the series as a whole, I naturally have a keen interest in the new Romans volume by Colin Kruse. I would like to know with which camp Colin identifies, and how much/well he presents the opposing view.

Another goal is to pursue conservative, but scholarly works. By "conservative", I don't at all mean that more liberal views on things can't be pointed out--in fact, I'd prefer they are pointed out and done so sincerely and respectfully (the scholarly part) so I can better understand the more liberal positions. But at this stage, I consider myself a conservative and would like to accumulate resources written from the conservative perspective. So I'm wondering where PNTC falls in that regard.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Fred Chapman

You may want to review this

http://www.bestcommentaries.com/series/pillar-new-testament-commentary-pntc/

If there is a specific verse or passage you would like to see a sample of post back here and I will provide it (as long as it is not to long).

NB.Mick

balance between Arminian and Calvinist resources, so... with no debate desired regarding these two positions on election, I would like some help addressing the following questions.

Does the PNTC series as a whole have a definite lean one way or the other?

calvinist. Other positions may be referred to, but I don't think they always get a real fair hearing.

pursue conservative, but scholarly works. (..) So I'm wondering where PNTC falls in that regard.

conservative, I think.

John Kaess

D.A Carson is the editor of the PNTC series and he is a Calvinist. I, however, am not a Calvinist and I have found the series to be very balanced. In fact, PNTC is my preferred commentary series and I have many others to choose from. It is readable, scholarly, conservative and always helpful. However, I must confess that I have not had cause to spend any time in the Romans commentaries (I have both the old and new one), but I consider the one on Mark to be one of the best there is. The PNTC series was the reason I upgraded to Platinum several years ago (I think in Logos 4) back when it was a part of the package.

Edwin Bowden

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/650727#Comment_650727

D.A Carson is the editor of the PNTC series and he is a Calvinist. I, however, am not a Calvinist and I have found the series to be very balanced. In fact, PNTC is my preferred commentary series and I have many others to choose from. It is readable, scholarly, conservative and always helpful. However, I must confess that I have not had cause to spend any time in the Romans commentaries (I have both the old and new one), but I consider the one on Mark to be one of the best there is. The PNTC series was the reason I upgraded to Platinum several years ago (I think in Logos 4) back when it was a part of the package.

I agree. Excellent balanced series.

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/650795#Comment_650795

I've prioritized these as my go to commentaries first.

mm.

D.A Carson is the editor of the PNTC series and he is a Calvinist. I, however, am not a Calvinist and I have found the series to be very balanced. In fact, PNTC is my preferred commentary series and I have many others to choose from. It is readable, scholarly, conservative and always helpful. However, I must confess that I have not had cause to spend any time in the Romans commentaries (I have both the old and new one), but I consider the one on Mark to be one of the best there is. The PNTC series was the reason I upgraded to Platinum several years ago (I think in Logos 4) back when it was a part of the package.

I agree. Excellent balanced series.

Sacrifice

Reformed, balanced, scholarly, useable.

It is one of my favorites for sure.

Mark Barnes

Does the PNTC series as a whole have a definite lean one way or the other?

In scholarly commentaries like these, you won't see much bias one way or the other. It doesn't really matter where the author stands, because he'll be judicious.

pursue conservative, but scholarly works.

That's 100% where Pillar stands.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/650853#Comment_650853

I want to thank you all for your feedback. Based on that feedback, I decided to go with the package upgrade and look forward to gleaning insights from the PNTC set as well as from the other resources included in the upgrade.

In my initial post, I didn't want to say whether I was looking for more Arminian resources or more Calvinist resources in my effort to maintain balance in my current library, because I truly was (and still am) interested in all possible feedback. But now that I've made the decision and made the upgrade, I'll say that my library is actually running a little light on the Arminian side and I'm in search of good scholarly Arminian resources. Having said that, I still value adding good Calvinistic resources to my library, but do so in the hope that they are scholarly yet practical, and reasonably balanced and respectful of Arminian views even though written from a Reformed perspective. Based on the feedback provided here, I am hopeful to find those things true of the PNTC. Fortunately, the package upgrade does also include some Arminian resources, although I don't believe they will be as scholarly in nature as I'm searching for. But that's OK--tomorrow is another day and who knows, I may just find the Arminian resources I need to maintain the theological balance I'm after in my library without sacrificing scholarship. [:)]

Bottom line is, I'll go to bed tonight grateful for the good Bible study software and resources I have.

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/651024#Comment_651024

You might find some ideas here.

The Believers Church Bible Commentary is very well done and will provide an Arminian perspective.

Josh Hunt

They do lean calvinist. They are a great commentary set.

Mike Childs

I love the Pillar series. I am about as conservative as they come, and I am Arminian. I find Pillar to lean reformed, but not be obnoxious about it. I am more concerned about getting solid evangelical Biblical scholarship than in the writer agreeing with me, and it sounds like you feel pretty much the same.

Cornerstone is another commentary, somewhat less technical than Pillar, that does a good job mixing Armenian and Calvinist writers.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/651047#Comment_651047

You might find some ideas here.

The Believers Church Bible Commentary is very well done and will provide an Arminian perspective.

Gao Lu,

Thank you much for both Links. The forum link will be helpful indeed, and the commentary set is one I was not aware of. It's pretty tough to consider a resource if you're not aware of it, so I'll tuck that one away for future consideration when the piggy-bank has been replenished.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/651138#Comment_651138

I love the Pillar series. I am about as conservative as they come, and I am Arminian. I find Pillar to lean reformed, but not be obnoxious about it. I am more concerned about getting solid evangelical Biblical scholarship than in the writer agreeing with me, and it sounds like you feel pretty much the same.

Cornerstone is another commentary, somewhat less technical than Pillar, that does a good job mixing Armenian and Calvinist writers.

Michael,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the Pillar series and for pointing out the Cornerstone series. You'd have no way of knowing this, but based on other posts you've made, I've sensed I'm probably on the same page as you regarding my theological convictions and conservative perspective while at the same time desiring solid scholarship. In fact, it was largely based on things you've said about Pillar in some other threads that made me reconsider my original decision to just do the Logos 6 "Features" crossgrade from my Logos 5 Gold package and to look hard at the Logos 6 Gold upgrade instead which included the Pillar series. It pretty much drained my Logos piggybank for the time being, but long term, I believe I'll be better served by my switch to the upgrade than I would have been with the crossgrade.

Edwin Bowden

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/651383#Comment_651383

Michael,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the Pillar series and for pointing out the Cornerstone series. You'd have no way of knowing this, but based on other posts you've made, I've sensed I'm probably on the same page as you regarding my theological convictions and conservative perspective while at the same time desiring solid scholarship. In fact, it was largely based on things you've said about Pillar in some other threads that made me reconsider my original decision to just do the Logos 6 "Features" crossgrade from my Logos 5 Gold package and to look hard at the Logos 6 Gold upgrade instead which included the Pillar series. It pretty much drained my Logos piggybank for the time being, but long term, I believe I'll be better served by my switch to the upgrade than I would have been with the crossgrade.

Wise decision. Pillar is well worth the upgrade. I have not used all the volumes, but each volume I have used has impressed me very much. L6 Gold is a great pkg for the money.