-
Logos tech played with it to no avail. Restore past Logos update and it is now working.
-
I updated Logos 5 for windows yesterday. One prompt from Trend to allow Logos to install. I used Logos after install yesterday. This morning it will not open. I get the blue Logos box for a few seconds and then nothing. Any help up yet?
-
I am looking to purchase a license for Proclaim but I have a question. May I use Proclaim for more then just a service at my church? I currently teach at two colleges and was wondering if I could create teaching slides from Proclaim to show there as well. One of the places I teach is a degree completion program that is a 4 hour class. I begin wit songs
-
I agree. Please make this book avaliable on Logos. Dr. McManis has set the record straight. Apologetics is about advancing and defending the gospel of Christ, not attempting to prove the mere probability of the existence of God. The existence of God does not need to be proven. God's existence is suppressed by the unbeliever (atheist, agnostic, or theistic
-
MJ. Smith, Yes, the creeds started with belief in God but not an apology of God. The creeds stated what they believed about God and those beliefs were based in Scripture. This is the same with the Christ and his death and resurrection. They were not trying to prove these things to an unbelieving mind on the basis of natural revelation, natural theology
-
John, You said, "In order to reach into God's realm you need information that lies beyond the constraints of all logic." Logic is grounded in the character of God. A equals not A is impossible because God does not lie. It never will because God does not change. I am not saying that we will every grasp to the fullness of this infinite God but he is reasonable
-
MJ. Smith You said, "And I believe that 'proof' of the existence of God must precede discussions of God's revelation and incarnation which must precede discussion of Scripture." I am not a logic junky in a league with you. I have only begun to read philosophy in the past 5 years. However, I hold that God's revelation is perfect so I measure all statements
-
MJ. Smith You said, "To me they are 'the flip side of' each other. God reveals; we try to understand i.e. 'do theology'." I agree they are the same coin but here is where I see the difference. God reveals perfectly and man does not try to understand but supresses the truth of that revelation. Man then exchanges the truth for an image they have created
-
About myself did I really write "know one would understand"...wow...please forgive me and replace it with..."no one would understand." Sorry
-
M.J. Smith, I do not mean to mince words with you but it was an argument from natural "revelation" not natural "theology." There is in my mind a huge difference between the two. Paul's argument is that people reject the natural revelation of God. Therefore, any natural theology they build will be based on a rejection of some part or the whole of natural
-
MJ. Smith, Isn't it true that the unbeliever may not have heard of God's gift? If so, does the word "rejected" have meaning? "Rejected" has meaning according to Romans 1:18 - 23. They supress (reject and hold down) the truth about God revealled in creation (His invisible attributes defined as His eternal power and divine nature). This rejection condemns
-
Bob, I am not a grammarian like Wallace only a student of his word and one who loves 1 John. The way I understand the "apparent" contradiction is this: 1:8 is speaking of the reality of our situation. We are utterly steeped in sin so much so that there are unintentional sins that are unknown to us unless God brings them to our attention (Lev 4:14, Hebrews