Logos Max Disappointment

I have officially been a Logos Max Subscriber for over a year. I was one of the early adopters, and really saw the potential. But over the last year, I have been extremely disappointed in the product as a whole, especially the "AI" portion that was supposed to be a huge selling point. I expected a Full-Blown AI that would help me search my library of purchased material to find things and summarize topics or books or anything that was relevant to what I am currently studying.

Instead, what I am met with it is a worse search engine than even Google.

If I ask it a simple question, I'm met with a synopsis from resources I don't even own, and it doesn't even attempt to search my library. It's only if I go the "books" section, and yet I am still provided the same nonsense.

For example, here is a screenshot of what it looks like when I search "ALL", which implies it's searching everything.

It's worth noting that despite it supposedly searching "ALL", only 6 of the first 50 or so books/bibles it searches are from my downloaded library.

Now here's a screenshot, when I search my library with the exact same question. It's worth noting that I do have the Whole Works of Thomas Boston in my Logos library, and it IS downloaded, so it is readily available to be scoured and summarized by whatever "AI" Logos is supposed to be using.

This is extremely disappointing, especially when I know for a fact that Thomas Boston does reference Romans chapter 1 quite a bit in a few of his works, most notably the "Fourfold State of Human Nature"

Now this last one is Microsoft Copilot's answer of the exact same question

Thomas Boston doesn’t offer a verse-by-verse commentary on Romans 1 in the way modern expositors might, but his theological reflections—especially in The Whole Works of Thomas Boston and Illustrations of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion—frequently engage with themes central to Romans 1. Here's a synthesis of how Boston would likely approach the chapter, based on his doctrinal framework and published works:

🧠 Boston’s Theological Lens on Romans 1

1. The Revelation of God in Nature (Romans 1:18–20)

Boston strongly affirms that God reveals Himself through creation, leaving humanity “without excuse.”
He emphasizes that the light of nature is sufficient to convict sinners of their guilt, though not to save them.
In his catechetical writings, he underscores that this natural revelation is part of God's just judgment against unbelief.

2. The Wrath of God Against Ungodliness

Boston sees Romans 1 as a courtroom scene: God indicts mankind for suppressing the truth.
He would interpret the “wrath of God” not merely as future punishment but as a present judicial act—handing sinners over to their own corrupt desires.
This aligns with his view of the Fourfold State of man: from innocence to fallenness, grace, and glory.

3. The Devolution of Human Morality (Romans 1:21–32)

Boston would likely describe this as the natural consequence of rejecting divine light.
He often warns that when men abandon God, they do not become neutral—they descend into idolatry and moral chaos.
His writings stress that sin darkens the mind and disorders the affections, which Romans 1 illustrates vividly.

4. The Need for the Gospel

Though Romans 1 is heavy with judgment, Boston would see it as a setup for the gospel’s necessity.
He insists that only the righteousness of Christ, revealed in the gospel (Romans 1:16–17), can rescue man from this condition.
Boston’s emphasis on free grace and imputed righteousness fits perfectly with Paul’s argument.

If you're diving into Boston’s works for a deeper study, I’d recommend starting with The Whole Works of Thomas Boston, Volume 1, especially his doctrinal illustrations. You can explore them on Digital Puritan Press.

Would you like me to help trace how Boston’s view of human depravity compares with other Reformed thinkers like Calvin or Edwards?

This is what I should be expecting from Logos Max. If it continues like this for the next year, I will probably not subscribe again, because so far, I have not seen anything useful coming from this so call "Smart Search" which has access to a treasure trove of theological knowledge, and yet can't even find references to Romans Chapter 1 by a specific author in any of their books.

Find more posts tagged with

Performance

Features

Desktop App

Comments

Mark Smith

I am also surprised at the Logos AI results (or lack thereof). I hope someone from Logos could look into this and give a response. It seems quite reasonable to expect a "Smart" search to find results in your Library.

MJ. Smith

I tried the same query on my Verbum and broke out laughing

Unfortunately, none of the provided excerpts specifically discuss Thomas Boston’s interpretation of Romans Chapter 1. The only relevant commentary on Romans 1 comes from Thomas Aquinas, who suggests that men know God even as they defy him, and that this knowledge is not unimpaired[1]. The epistle is generally understood as a fundamental treatise on man’s sinful state and justification through Christ’s work, death, and resurrection[2]. To get a detailed understanding of Thomas Boston’s specific views on Romans Chapter 1, I would recommend consulting his direct writings or commentaries on the book of Romans.
[1] Peter J. Leithart, “Anti–Natural Law,” in Natural Law: Five Views, ed. Andrew T. Walker and Ryan T. Anderson, Critical Points (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2025), 245.
[2] William Kelly, Romans (Galaxie Software, 2005), 2.

Thomas Boston > Thomas Aquinas … same first name must be related right?

Graham Criddle

You do get better results if you constrain the scope of the search to the Thomas Boston series (not suggesting you should have to but it might help in your research)

Jerry Purvis

Well yes,I could do that but that's not the point. What if I wanted to go broader and ask what the Marrow Men had to say or the Reformers? You are still presented with the same type of results. It's not a very smart search.

Results asking Logos "smart search" about marrow men views on Romans 1

The articles do not specifically mention the Marrow men's views on Romans 1. However, they do provide some general commentary on this chapter. One article emphasizes that Romans is fundamentally a letter about the gospel, with Paul introducing himself as a servant of Christ Jesus called to be an apostle[1]. Another article discusses Paul's assertion in Romans 1:18 that "the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men"[2]. This concept of God's wrath is further elaborated in another article, which argues that the context of Romans calls for understanding the term "propitiation" in Romans 3:25 as appeasing God's anger, rather than merely expiation[3]. The articles also highlight Paul's view of the universal sinfulness of humanity as presented in Romans 1-3[3][4], and how this relates to the organic oneness of the human race in terms of law and morality[4].

[1] Timothy Keller, Romans 1–7 for You, ed. Carl Laferton, God’s Word for You (The Good Book Company, 2014), 11.
[2] Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), 205.
[3] J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Westmont, IL: IVP Books, 2011), 205.
[4] Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith, trans. Henry Zylstra (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), 223.

Same question presented to Microsoft Copilot

The Marrow Men—Scottish theologians like Thomas Boston, Ebenezer Erskine, and others influenced by The Marrow of Modern Divinity—read Romans 1 as a foundational indictment of humanity’s universal guilt and need for grace. Their interpretation is deeply shaped by their emphasis on free grace, the law-gospel distinction, and the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness.

Here’s how they typically approached Romans 1:

🔍 Universal Guilt and Natural Revelation

• Romans 1:18–32 describes how all humanity is “without excuse” because God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen in creation.
• The Marrow Men affirmed this as proof that even without the Mosaic Law, Gentiles are accountable to God through natural revelation.
• They saw this as a setup for Paul’s argument that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin—leading to the need for justification by faith alone.

⚖️ Law and Gospel Distinction

• The Marrow theology emphasized that the law reveals sin but cannot save.
• Romans 1 shows the law written on the heart (natural law), which condemns but does not regenerate.
• This sets the stage for Romans 3–5, where the gospel is revealed as the only remedy.

❤️ Free Offer of the Gospel

• The Marrow Men were passionate about the “free offer” of Christ to all sinners, regardless of their depravity.
• Romans 1’s portrayal of deep moral corruption (idolatry, lust, dishonor) was not a barrier to grace—it was the very reason grace was needed.
• They rejected any notion that one must first be morally reformed before coming to Christ.

🛑 Against Legalism and Conditionalism

• They opposed the idea that repentance or moral improvement were prerequisites for receiving Christ.
• Romans 1 was used to show that even the most debased sinners were not beyond the reach of the gospel.

If you’re exploring this in the context of Marrowcast or theological study, I can help trace how Boston or Erskine specifically preached Romans 1—or how it shaped debates on assurance, covenant theology, or the nature of saving faith. Want to go deeper into their sermons or controversies?

Clearly the smart search is not as smart as it should be, despite having more direct access to theological resources,and a more refined set, than a general purpose AI like Copilot.

I mean if this is what 125/yr is going towards, I'd rather spend it on a pro version of an actual AI product like Copilot or ChatGPT

Dave Hooton

It is disappointing. I chose an author at random, listed his commentaries, chose a search of Your Books and asked What does "bruce barton" say about John chapter 3. The synopsis started with "Unfortunately, the provided excerpts do not contain a direct commentary by Bruce Barton specifically about John chapter 3.".

The first book listed is his "Life Application New Testament Commentary". It references the Title Page but the link opens to random articles whilst only the title page is highlighted. The title page of his "1,2, & 3 John" is directly linked and highlighted. But the author's name is the main reason for the highlights!

The truth emerges when I ask what do books written by "bruce barton" say about John chapter 3:-
"While Bruce Barton is not extensively quoted discussing John chapter 3 specifically, the excerpts provide valuable insights into the chapter’s theological significance" [my emphasis].

The synopsis improves dramatically when the query is rephrased as What does "bruce barton" say about John 3 AND restricted to the Series he authors. Otherwise, it seems that "John chapter 3" is taken literally and the query is looking for quotes/excerpts from other authors.

NB. The Series "Life Application Bible Commentary" contains 17 volumes, excluding the New Testament Commentary above.

I have found Logos' so-called AI Search (All or Books) to be very lacking, because it only summarizes its top 5 search results. It's not useful at all, and it's not what most people would expected from any AI search. We expect it to truly go through our purchased library (or Logos' entire book catalogue) and summarize its findings like normal AI should. That's why I rarely use it anymore after the initial testing. A lot of times I find that a well-crafted Library search might yield more resources for me.

The only AI features I find useful so far are: AI Bible search (excellent and what an AI search is meant to be), and sermon outline generation (which is still buried deep in the Sermon Builder tool, which I and many others do not actively use).

Logos AI has a long way to go and has a lot of room for improvement. I'm willing to support it via subscription and hope that it will eventually catch up to other AI tools out there to meet users' needs. I hope something drastically better is in the works…

NetworkGeek

For point of comparison I asked the same thing of ChatGPT using its agent capability. It looks like from its references it got most of this from gracegems.org, which I am not familiar with. ChatGPT does not have access to my Logos books. I haven't read it all and I don't know Thomas Boston's writings very well, is this an accurate summary of his thoughts on Romans 1?

Thomas Boston (1676‑1732) did not write a single commentary on Romans, but he quoted Romans 1 often in his sermons and treatises. His comments on Romans 1 are scattered through his works and focus on Paul’s teaching that the gospel reveals the righteousness of God and also his wrath against human sin. Some representative passages are summarised below.

God’s wrath revealed against sin – Romans 1 : 18

“Departing from Iniquity the Duty of All Who Name the Name of Jesus” – Boston uses Romans 1 : 18 as a warning to people who profess faith but continue in sin. He says the gospel reveals “the wrath of God … against all ungodliness and unrighteousness” . This, he explains, means that those who will not depart from sin incur God’s “high displeasure” and cannot expect his blessing. Later, when urging people to show that they truly belong to God, he quotes the verse again, asking how anyone can expect God’s favour when “the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness” .
“The Sin, Folly, and Danger of Men’s Calling Christ Their Lord, and Not Yielding Obedience to His Laws” – Boston cites Romans 1 : 18 to illustrate that people often “hold the truth prisoner in the head,” refusing to let it rule their lives . He notes that gospel truths force their way into the mind, but the “natural enmity” of the heart fights against them, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness . This echoes Paul’s description of people who suppress the truth and so are objects of God’s wrath.

Natural knowledge of God’s law – Romans 1 : 32

In “Human Nature in its Fourfold State”, Boston uses Romans 1 : 32 to show that the law of God is written on every conscience. He explains that Adam did not need a written law to know that death was the penalty for sin because “the very heathens were not ignorant of this, ‘knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death’” . The verse proves, in his view, that even those without special revelation are aware that wrongdoing deserves punishment.

Hatred of God and approval of evil – Romans 1 : 30‑32

In the same treatise he warns those who detest true religion that they are “haters of God” . He says that people who can take pleasure only in worldly lusts and not in holiness are “haters of his image,” echoing Paul’s description of wicked people as “haters of God” (Romans 1 : 30) . Upright Adam, he argues, would have been an “eyesore” to such people , showing that hatred of righteousness is really hatred of God.
Elsewhere he points out that natural men not only commit sin but “approve of those who do them,” alluding to Romans 1 : 32. This shows that fallen humanity will not only sin but defend and celebrate sin in others, which reveals how deeply the conscience is corrupted.

Being given up to sin – Romans 1 : 26

Boston stresses that God sometimes punishes sinners by abandoning them to their lusts. In his sermon he observes that when people resist God’s offers of grace, “in anger he gives them over” . Citing Paul’s statement that “God gave them up to vile affections” (Romans 1 : 26), Boston says this is the worst judgment a person can receive and warns that those who are given up to themselves are rarely reclaimed . He exhorts listeners to depart from iniquity so they will not be handed over to sin.

Suppressing truth and empty profession – Romans 1 : 18

Boston uses Romans 1 : 18 again to critique empty profession. He notes that people may call Christ “Lord, Lord,” attend services and make a profession, yet their “carnal mind” remains “enmity against God” and they keep the truth imprisoned so it cannot govern their lives . Such people will face the wrath described in Romans 1 because they hold the truth in unrighteousness .

Summary

Thomas Boston read Romans 1 as a sober description of fallen humanity and a warning to hypocritical professing Christians. He drew several lessons from the chapter:

God’s wrath is part of the gospel: the gospel not only reveals God’s righteousness but also his wrath against sin (Romans 1 : 18), so professing Christians must depart from all iniquity .
Conscience testifies against sin: even people without Scripture know that sin deserves death (Romans 1 : 32) , showing that Adam and all humanity have an innate awareness of God’s moral law.
Hatred of holiness is hatred of God: those who despise godliness are “haters of God” (Romans 1 : 30) .
Persistent sin brings hardening: God may give sinners up to their lusts (Romans 1 : 26), a judgment Boston considers worse than temporal afflictions .
Suppressing truth is a deadly hypocrisy: people may know the truth yet suppress it in unrighteousness (Romans 1 : 18), proving their profession is empty .

Overall, Boston’s comments on Romans 1 are pastoral. He uses Paul’s indictment of pagan idolatry and immorality as a mirror for nominal Christians. By highlighting God’s wrath against sin, the universal knowledge of moral law, and the danger of suppressing truth, he exhorts his readers to repent, depart from iniquity, and live consistently with their profession of Christ.

NichtnurBibelleser

Verbum with German UI here. I know he hasn't written a Commentary on Romans, but I toyed around a bit on searching von Balthasar's stance on Romans chapter 1. The queries mentioned above yielded nothing useful. But asking only for "Romans chapter 1" there were some results. See the search in all of v. Balthasar's works left, in "Theo-Drama" in the middle and restricted only to his book on Karl Barth to the right:

Addendum: I knew von Balthasar deals with Romans. I knew he does so in "Theo-Drama" and in his book on Karl Barth, so I hand-picked them. The same could be done for "Glory vol VII". But it would be nice if the AI would identify the works and passages relevant to Romans 1.

Tarek Mourad

Good morning,

I want to thank you all for raising this issue, as I have a similar experience when using Logos Pro and checking same results using CoPilot, ChatGPT. Logos is always producing underwhelming results. My expectations were, it will use AI algorithms in addition to hyperlinks that Logos have mastered over the years to scan through books I own and distill results along with references that will allow me to dig deeper or discard, but it is not doing this at all.

I compared summarize tool results, search results, asking for the meaning or commentary on a verse and mainly the results were not in favor of Logos AI engine.

I believe we need to work with the developers to better this product and train it to yield the results we are hoping for

Willie Pankey

amen

Bruce Dunning

I too have not been impressed with the Logos AI so far but am optimistic that it will continue to improve with time.

GaoLu

Side note:
If you export a bibliography of a Logos collection and train your choice of AI on that, you get some pretty good results.

Be nice is Logos would just do that for us in the app.

Mark Barnes (Logos)

As you've discovered, Smart Search has two weaknesses that are relevant to this discussion:

It's not intended to be a "chat" interface. It competes with old Google (pre "AI Answers"), not with ChatGPT.
It's designed to help you find the contents of books, but it doesn't know very much about the books themselves (who wrote them, for example).

We know that in the 18 months or so since we first started working on Smart Search, expectations have changed.

These are really hard problems to solve, and OpenAI, Google, and others are spending literally billions of dollars solving them.

But that's not to say we aren't trying to significantly improve what we offer within Logos. Here's the unedited output of an internal prototype, using a question similar to yours. The prototype is far from perfect, but it will help you see where we're trying to get to.

Lew Worthington

Thanks, @Mark Barnes (Logos). That's a helpful perspective.

Mark Smith

Mark, while I understand Logos' limitations, it seems that results like Jerry pointed out would frustrate users and lead to the same feelings he had.

Perhaps Logos needs to add a banner to the top of the results panel with a bit of explanation about what to expect or not to expect from "Smart" search.