Christian Ethics by Norman Geisler was written in 1989. I’ve known many people who have read this book over the years, but never bothered to do so myself until I saw it on sale for a deep discount! I found it to be a great introduction to ethical systems and pressing moral issues.
Geisler starts by looking at various ethical systems such as antinomianism, situationism, utilitarianism, generalism, and variations of absolutism (these are the names he gives these views, which are not exactly my preferences). He concludes that the Bible teaches a deontological view of ethics. When it comes to the question of whether moral duties ever conflict and how we are to respond, he argues for the “greater good” view in which moral conflicts are real, and we do the greater good when we choose to lesser of the two evils.
Next he moves on to specific moral issues: abortion, euthanasia, various biomedical issues, capital punishment, war, civil disobedience, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, and ecology. It’s no surprise that his conclusions are consistent with a conservative theological hermeneutic. I find myself in general agreement with most of his conclusions and arguments in this section. For those who studied these issues in-depth, you won’t find much new in this section, but for those who have not given much thought to these moral issues, Geisler provides a great introduction, cramming a lot of well-organized content into a short amount of space. One thing I liked about this section is that Geisler not only argued for his position, but interacted with common objections to his positions as well.
Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone wanting to explore ethical theory and answers to some of the pressing moral issues of our day.
Thinking to Believe 
June 26, 2014 at 1:08 pm
Does he mention the Counil’s ban on food sacrificed to idols, and how Paul justifies its relaxation consequentially?
There seem to be two ways to go, Scripturally. Either morality works both deontologically and consequentially, but deontology is “king,” or morality works both deontologically and consequentially, but consequentialism is “king.” Only under the former system do we risk submission to rules that are, in situation, counterproductive. Whereas, in the latter system, we risk reckless relaxation from time to time.
LikeLike
June 26, 2014 at 4:32 pm
No, I don’t recall him discussing that incident.
If I’m understanding your point in the second paragraph, I would say that the Biblical view is a deontological view of ethics, but that does not mean consequences are not considered in our decision making. It’s just that consequences can never determine what is moral. In Geisler’s words, “Simply because results do not determine what is right does not mean that it is not right to consider results.”—pp. 24-5
Jason
LikeLike
June 27, 2014 at 8:17 am
Forgive me, what I meant was that both flipped “king” views could be supported Scripturally, depending on your interpretation. The New Testament has several examples of “consequence as king,” although they could be spun as “a deontological dilemma between rule ‘X’ and rule ‘do the constructive thing,’ with the latter winning sometimes.”
LikeLike
September 20, 2014 at 10:01 am
At the very least, you have to admit that Christians are VERY creative:
http://hawthornephoto.com/walk.htm
LikeLike