1st John and it's apparent contradictions
hi,
I was not going to post this as this is not directly a tech post about Logos, but it "could" be depending on the answer.
I'm not looking for a flame war...just some answers, some of which may involve Greek Grammar and so I thought that I would go ahead and trust everyone's judgment.
I was looking at 1st John and it's apparent contradictory statements:
1st 1John 1:8
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
and
1John 3:6
Everyone who resides in him does not sin; everyone who sins has neither seen him nor known him.
From what I gather of the views of this situation, there is the
"present participle" αμαρτανων as "continuously" or "habitually" view.
I was leaning toward this but Daniel Wallace seems to poo poo that
notion as "inconsistent" in his intermediate grammar.
Some other commentaries seem to say that John is speaking "hyperbolically" and this is not to be taken as absolutes.
My Q: how do YOU resolve it?
bob
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
Comments
Context here is very important.
If we say ... is an expression of remarkable interest, because the apostle here identified himself with the false teachers, not through any agreement with them, but out of a delicate regard for his readers.
John uses the condition "If we say", as though he was taking up the claim of some whose thinking is to be avoided. These probably claimed to have no sin. If we should so argue, says John, "we deceive ourselves".
Some may really believe that such is true, that they are above sin and do not need the blood of Jesus to cleanse them in order to have fellowship with God, but the idea is not truth. It is a lie, and those who so speak have had their eyes blinded so that they do not perceive their error. If we are in this group, "the truth is not in us".
Jules, I agree!
Robert, 1 John 1:9 says (Holman) If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:8 is not a statement of perfection, rather it is a statement of denial or wrong. If we say we have NO sin, we call God a liar. Remember that gnosticism was a false gospel at the time. John wrote this book with the help of the Holy Spirit. John wanted the people (apparently believers) to mature in faith, not be babes (1 John 2:1 - My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ the Righteous One). So, Jesus is the propitiation for our sins (He paid the price).`
In regard to 1 John 3:6, I would like to interject the following scripture51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Jn 6:51). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Jn 6:56). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Jn 15:3-4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Jn 4:2-4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Jn 3:5-6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Jn 15:1-6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Col 1:21-23). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
so the bottom line for me is FAITH. Sorry, I do not intend to cause debate or war. My only intent is to share the word of God and let it speak for itself, with of course a little of my non-exegeted theology.
Sorry, I do not intend to cause debate or war. My only intent is to share the word of God and let it speak for itself, with of course a little of my non-exegeted theology.
No need for apologies - yours is exactly the kind of reasoned posts many of us enjoy ... as an occassional addition to the Logos oriented questions. It is ever so much more enjoyable than personal attacks.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
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 9:7). We, in ourselves, are unable to be without sin for we do not see ourselves as God sees sin.
3:6 is speaking in the arena of time (thus 3:8 the Devil has been sinning from the beginning). The Devil has never stopped sinning. He perpetually sins. However, the people born of God do not continuously sin. There are breaks from sin unto acts of righteousness. I liken it to a heart monitor. The Devil is a flat line dead in his sin. One who has been born of God breaks from the flat line of sin and has a beat of righteousness. As the spiritual health of the person increases the heart beat becomes stronger and more consistent.
I believe the language supports such an assessment. I hope this helps.
Charlie Nason
Feel to contact me if you want. charlie.nason@sbcglobal.net
From what I've gleaned; it would seem that the grammar does play into it...and as Jules pointed out; the context also.
The BECGNT says that it's the "false teacher" / believer juxtaposition that's in play.
I asked Dr. James White; mainly because I really respect his integrity in dealing with the text itself and he indicated that the grammar angle was valid.
thanks everyone for chiming in...
PS: I'm absolutely AMAZED that this thread has gone this far without "you know who" getting in on it...George Somsel! Where are you!
Seriously; George, I really did wonder what you'd say...
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
I disagree that the grammar angle necessarily helps determine the meaning of the passage
especially in light of Wallace's point
(2) It seems to contradict 5:16 (ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον [if anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not unto death]). The author juxtaposes “brother” with the present tense of ἁμαρτάνω with the proclamation that such might not lead to death. On the customary present view, the author should not be able to make this statement.
most recent commentaries that I have consulted agree with that assessment (the point appears to be obvious to me since his use of the present tense must be assumed to be consistent).
I believe that the context yields more useful clues if we assume that the author has not forgotten what he said in 1:8-10
even though I would not argue the habitual view based on grammar, I believe it is hinted at by the context
while not exactly supporting the point I am arguing for, the NET Bible notes are interesting (they argue that the habitual meaning cannot be ruled out, not that it is necessarily proven by grammar)
tn The interpretive problem raised by the use of the present tense ἁμαρτάνει (hamartanei) in this verse (and ποιεῖ [poiei] in 3:9 as well) is that (a) it appears to teach a sinless state of perfection for the true Christian, and (b) it appears to contradict the author’s own statements in 2:1–2 where he acknowledged that Christians do indeed sin. (1) One widely used method of reconciling the acknowledgment in 2:1–2 that Christians do sin with the statements in 3:6 and 3:9 that they do not is expressed by M. Zerwick ("Biblical Greek" §251). He understands the aorist to mean “commit sin in the concrete, commit some sin or other” while the present means “be a sinner, as a characteristic «state».” N. Turner (Grammatical Insights, 151) argues essentially the same as Zerwick, stating that the present tense ἁμαρτάνει is stative (be a sinner) while the aorist is ingressive (begin to be a sinner, as the initial step of committing this or that sin). Similar interpretations can be found in a number of grammatical works and commentaries. (2) Others, however, have questioned the view that the distinction in tenses alone can convey a “habitual” meaning without further contextual clarification, including C. H. Dodd (The Johannine Epistles [MNTC], 79) and Z. C. Hodges (“1 John,” BKCNT, 894). B. Fanning (Verbal Aspect [OTM], 215–17) has concluded that the habitual meaning for the present tense cannot be ruled out, because there are clear instances of habitual presents in the NT where other clarifying words are not present and the habitual sense is derived from the context alone. This means that from a grammatical standpoint alone, the habitual present cannot be ruled out in 1 John 3:6 and 9. It is still true, however, that it would have been much clearer if the author had reinforced the habitual sense with clarifying words or phrases in 1 John 3:6 and 9 if that is what he had intended. Dodd’s point, that reliance on the distinction in tenses alone is quite a subtle way of communicating such a vital point in the author’s argument, is still valid. It may also be added that the author of 1 John has demonstrated a propensity for alternating between present and aorist tenses for purely stylistic reasons (see 2:12).
I disagree that the grammar angle necessarily helps determine the meaning of the passage
especially in light of Wallace's point
(2) It seems to contradict 5:16 (ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον [if anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not unto death]). The author juxtaposes “brother” with the present tense of ἁμαρτάνω with the proclamation that such might not lead to death. On the customary present view, the author should not be able to make this statement.
most recent commentaries that I have consulted agree with that assessment (the point appears to be obvious to me since his use of the present tense must be assumed to be consistent).
I believe that the context yields more useful clues if we assume that the author has not forgotten what he said in 1:8-10
even though I would not argue the habitual view based on grammar, I believe it is hinted at by the context
while not exactly supporting the point I am arguing for, the NET Bible notes are interesting (they argue that the habitual meaning cannot be ruled out, not that it is necessarily proven by grammar)
tn The interpretive problem raised by the use of the present tense ἁμαρτάνει (hamartanei) in this verse (and ποιεῖ [poiei] in 3:9 as well) is that (a) it appears to teach a sinless state of perfection for the true Christian, and (b) it appears to contradict the author’s own statements in 2:1–2 where he acknowledged that Christians do indeed sin. (1) One widely used method of reconciling the acknowledgment in 2:1–2 that Christians do sin with the statements in 3:6 and 3:9 that they do not is expressed by M. Zerwick ("Biblical Greek" §251). He understands the aorist to mean “commit sin in the concrete, commit some sin or other” while the present means “be a sinner, as a characteristic «state».” N. Turner (Grammatical Insights, 151) argues essentially the same as Zerwick, stating that the present tense ἁμαρτάνει is stative (be a sinner) while the aorist is ingressive (begin to be a sinner, as the initial step of committing this or that sin). Similar interpretations can be found in a number of grammatical works and commentaries. (2) Others, however, have questioned the view that the distinction in tenses alone can convey a “habitual” meaning without further contextual clarification, including C. H. Dodd (The Johannine Epistles [MNTC], 79) and Z. C. Hodges (“1 John,” BKCNT, 894). B. Fanning (Verbal Aspect [OTM], 215–17) has concluded that the habitual meaning for the present tense cannot be ruled out, because there are clear instances of habitual presents in the NT where other clarifying words are not present and the habitual sense is derived from the context alone. This means that from a grammatical standpoint alone, the habitual present cannot be ruled out in 1 John 3:6 and 9. It is still true, however, that it would have been much clearer if the author had reinforced the habitual sense with clarifying words or phrases in 1 John 3:6 and 9 if that is what he had intended. Dodd’s point, that reliance on the distinction in tenses alone is quite a subtle way of communicating such a vital point in the author’s argument, is still valid. It may also be added that the author of 1 John has demonstrated a propensity for alternating between present and aorist tenses for purely stylistic reasons (see 2:12).
sn Does not sin. It is best to view the distinction between “everyone who practices sin” in 3:4 and “everyone who resides in him” in 3:6 as absolute and sharply in contrast. The author is here making a clear distinction between the opponents, who as moral indifferentists downplay the significance of sin in the life of the Christian, and the readers, who as true Christians recognize the significance of sin because Jesus came to take it away (3:5) and to destroy it as a work of the devil (3:8). This argument is developed more fully by S. Kubo (”I John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?” AUSS 7 [1969]: 47-56), who takes the opponents as Gnostics who define sin as ignorance. The opponents were probably not adherents of fully developed gnosticism, but Kubo is right that the distinction between their position and that of the true Christian is intentionally portrayed by the author here as a sharp antithesis. This explanation still has to deal with the contradiction between 2:1–2 and 3:6–9, but this does not present an insuperable difficulty. The author of 1 John has repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to present his ideas antithetically, in “either/or” terms, in order to bring out for the readers the drastic contrast between themselves as true believers and the opponents as false believers. In 2:1–2 the author can acknowledge the possibility that a true Christian might on occasion sin, because in this context he wishes to reassure his readers that the statements he has made about the opponents in the preceding context do not apply to them. But in 3:4–10, his concern is to bring out the absolute difference between the opponents and his readers, so he speaks in theoretical rather than practical terms which do not discuss the possible occasional exception, because to do so would weaken his argument.
What a shame Alain Maashe does not live in the UK(London) If only, if only. Thanks, for your input on this verse which has baffled me, and regards to Robert Pavich for raising the question. This is one thread i shall be following, i have not made up my mind yet. I was hoping D.A. Carson forth coming commentary would clarify the issue for me, it seems clarity is coming much sooner than i thought.
Ted.
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
The answer is simple, but requires a little thought and humility. The unbeliever does not have a new birth (new nature, new spirit). The unbeliever only has an old nature (spiritual death, Adam's original sin passed, old sin nature, flesh). Anything the unbeliever does will not please God because he has rejected receiving God's free give of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. The unbeliever is living under Satan's power (Eph.2:2). The unbeliever has not used his free will to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. When the unbeliever used his free will to become a believer, then he received a new spirit ( II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:18) that is able to relate, associate, or have fellowship with God (Trinity). The believer retains his old sin nature while possessing a new nature. The believer is either controlled by his old sin nature or his new spirit at any time. He chooses which will control him through his free will which remains intact after salvation. If the believer chooses the old sin nature then he sins and lives under the authority of Satan until he (repents) changes his mind. If the believer chooses for the many commands of the Word of God (including 1 Jn. 1:9) then he lives under the control of the new spirit. The believer does not sin under the control of the spirit (notice there are no capital S's here) until he chooses to sin again. The believer does not sin while under the control of the new birth until he (repents) uses his free will located in his heart which in turn changes his mind and allows sin to dominate for awhile. Now go to Galatians chapter 5 and take your pen and make all the capital S's small s's. Then read Galatians 5 corrected, and you should have no problem understanding 1st John 5:18f and 3:9, and how these relate to the rest of 1st John. It's the new nature vs. the old nature, and which one you (the believer) are going to let control your life at any moment. The more spiritual growth one has the better equipped one is to have the new spirit control. But it still remains a matter of volition.
Dr. Gene Yancey
sgyancey@bellsouth.net
Anything the unbeliever does will not please God because he has rejected receiving God's free give of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.
Isn't it true that the unbeliever may not have heard of God's gift? If so, does the word "rejected" have meaning?
Sorry, I just love keeping people logically accurate - 30+ years of doing so professionally :-)
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Dr. Yancey,
Wow...it sounds like your unbeliever is holding all of the cards.. [:O] "Who can resist his will?"
Just ribbing you. I'm a Calvinist and though I know what you are saying when you say "Anything the unbeliever does will not please God because he has rejected receiving God's free gift of Salvation."
I'd have rephrased it like so: "Anything the unbeliever does will not please God because the bible says he does not have the ability to do so. He has rejected God's command to repent and believe" [:D]
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
Alain,
thank you so very much for your post but I'm kicking myself because I HAVE THE NET and didn't look at it's notes...argggg...
My comment on the NET notes would be that alothough they said the following:
(2) Others,
however, have questioned the view that the distinction in tenses alone
can convey a “habitual” meaning without further contextual
clarification, including C. H. Dodd (The Johannine Epistles
The fact that others question it doesn't make it false though I agree, it's not the whole picture, but when you couple that with the context and the fact that we KNOW John is not saying that we are sinless...then this becomes a satisfying answer for me.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
Dr. Yancey,
Wow...it sounds like your unbeliever is holding all of the cards..
"Who can resist his will?"
Just ribbing you. I'm a Calvinist and though I know what you are saying when you say "Anything the unbeliever does will not please God because he has rejected receiving God's free gift of Salvation."
I'd have rephrased it like so: "Anything the unbeliever does will not please God because the bible says he does not have the ability to do so. He has rejected God's command to repent and believe"
I dunno, Robert,
Apparently your unbeliever is holding some of the cards if he rejected God's irresistable grace. [6] Just ribbing you, my brother.
I go with the dual nature explanation (no 4 in Akin's list posted by Alain above) since even the Aposrtle Paul had the warring within. I don't believe the unregenerate has a dual nature. Until the Holy Spirit quickens us (brings new life) we are spiritually dead. So only a believer would experience the dichotomy. The spiritual war within begins. We are to renew our minds with the fact of who we now, presently, are in Christ.; free from the power of sin, dead to sin and made "white as snow." That would pretty much make us sinless.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
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 man therefore it has meaning.
Sorry, I just love keeping people Biblically accurate, which in turn is logically accurate.
Quote:
Sorry, I just love keeping people Biblically accurate, which in turn is logically accurate.
Charles, you're a man after my own heart.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
Sorry, I just love keeping people Biblically accurate, which in turn is logically accurate.
An excellent appeal to natural theology. Lawrence R. Farley in his The Epistles to the Romans: A Gospel for All does an excellent job of presenting this view as well as explaining how the law is liberating - the theme that started me reading this thread. (logically, support via appeal to authority which may, of course, also be a fallacy).
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Daniel Akin in the NAC commentary has nicely summarized the different views for us
(1) The perfectionist view: the Christian does not commit acts of sin.
(2) The limited view of sin: the Christian does not commit certain sins (1 John 5:16)
(3) The Christian does not sin because what is sin in the life of the unbeliever is not so regarded by God in a believer.
(4) The Christian does not sin in his new nature.
(5) John is describing the theoretical or ideal and not reality. The ideal is, to a limited extent, true.
(6) John is expressing himself by using exaggeration in this extremely controversial issue.
(7) The Christian does not commit willful and deliberate sin.
(8) The Christian does not commit habitual and consistent sin. Sin does not characterize his life.
(9) The Christian who abides in Christ does not commit sin. When (or if) he sins, he is not abiding in Christ
There are a few variations of some of the views above
On the habitual sin view
In support of view #8, Colin Kruse in PNTC mentions Kerry Inman: “Inman supports the traditional resolution of the problem but in a new way. He argues on the basis of a study of the distinctive Johannine vocabulary, especially the Johannine vocabulary regarding sin, that the expression poiein hamartian (lit. ‘to do/commit sin’) as it is used in the Johannine writings does denote habitual sinning. Inman draws attention to John 8:34 (‘I tell you the truth, everyone who sins [pas ho poiōn hamartian] is a slave to sin’) as one example of Johannine usage where it is clear that poiein hamartian denotes habitual sinning. Inman also argues that in the context of 1 John 3:8 (‘He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning’) poiein hamartian must be understood to denote habitual sinning. In the light of these Johannine uses of poiein hamartian which clearly involve habitual sin, Inman argues that its use in 1 John 3:9 should be understood in the same way”
Akin (NAC) says something interesting
"Although numerous suggestions have been offered, and none is completely satisfying, the most reasonable still seems to center on John’s use of the present tense verb. John is not suggesting that the child of God will not commit a single act of sin. Instead, John is describing a way of life, a character, a prevailing lifestyle. Here the present tense verb contextually depicts linear, continual action. In other words, the believer will not live a life characterized by sin. From John’s earlier statements it is obvious that the Christian, while enjoying a position or standing of sinlessness through identification with Christ, will sin on occasion and will need to seek God’s forgiveness (1:9; 2:1–2). But what is also apparent from John’s writings is that a genuine believer will not live in continual sin. As D. Smith writes, “The believer may fall into sin but he will not walk in it.”
Alain,
thank you very much for that additional info. And darn it...I HAVE the NAC but didn't look at it...arggg...
there's a lesson here somewhere [:(]
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
Interesting old thread from a few months before I started on the forum. The old thread Kent dredged up brought me here. I'm just commenting so that I won't lose track of it.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
I'm just commenting so that I won't lose track of it.
If there's an old thread you want to keep track of, you can always go to the first post in the thread and choose More > "Add this post as a favorite." That way, you aren't reviving an old thread for the sole reason of keeping track of it.
I'm just commenting so that I won't lose track of it.If there's an old thread you want to keep track of, you can always go to the first post in the thread and choose More > "Add this post as a favorite." That way, you aren't reviving an old thread for the sole reason of keeping track of it.
Okay, I clicked that option (but should I click "add post" or "add forum"?), but what does that do for me? I don't see any way of locating the things I tag.
I think that's why I've never used this option in the past.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
Hi David,
I know that if I click on add to favorites, it shows up under my "Shared Favorites" list, right under my name on my profile page. I am now seeing if the tag shows up as well,
DAP
edit. Tag doesn't show up, may be an great idea for a suggestion, to allow us to view tags on our favorites list, as it does not look like there is any way to organize the list...
hamartia vs. hamartion
Habitual sinning vs. individual, uncharacteristic acts of sin
As Christians, we can't be habitual sinners, because we have received a new nature, and the Holy Spirit enables us to not sin habitually. However, because we still have a fleshly part to our nature while on this earth, there are times when we commit individual, uncharacteristics acts of sin. God promises to forgive us those.
Joe,
can you elaborate when you say "hamartia vs harartion"?
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
As I alluded to in the original post; here is what Dan Wallace had to say about it:
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
I have a real problem with the whole idea of habitual sin compared to sin that just happens once in a while.
If I brush my teeth daily it is considered a habit and is habitual, if I exercise 5 days a week that is my habit and it is considered habitual.
Show me the believer that is not a habitual sinner.
In Christ,
Jim
Robert,
Check out the Greek underlying the English word "sin" in 1 John 1. Just like phileo vs agape, it's not the same in Greek. If you look in Logos at the Greek word that we translate "sin," you'll notice that there are times that hamartia is used, and times that hamartion is used. I take one to be the equivalent of habitual sin, and the other that of an uncharacteristic, singular act of sin. It's been a while since I worked through that, though, so I don't recall right now which is which.
Joe
What??? One is a noun; the other is a participle. I fail to see the distinction you are making. I believe that habitual sin is in view in 1 John 3:6. However, it is also possible that John is combatting two different forms of Gnosticism in these two passages (sinless perfection and the belief that sin does not touch the spirit). From this thread, others obviously have different views. That is alright, but I fail to understand your point.
Jack
Enable-and-Submit-Log-Files | Install