• An excellent collection of important biblical topics, developed and discussed well.
    1. Ok folks, where are we with this work? Lexham? Logos?? It's going on a couple of years now. An update would be helpful. :-)
      1. 🤔
    2. Holy Cow! (or divine bovine), so many religious groups that were and are influential in the history of Christianity not even mentioned in the chapter headings. Instead he seems to stay with the trope of usual participants. Wondering if this is more about numbers than actual influence. Acknowledging that there is a diverse field of groups, me thinks logos might have considered breaking this into a two session set, rather than diminishing the potential value of the project to the potential student by simply crushing the timeline into a singe session. Looking forward to reviews from those who take the plunge. Also, nothing against Mr. Armstrong personally (I don't know him), perhaps Logos could contract with a few less voices from Wheaton College. I appreciate they have a particular view of things, but more diversity, like more facets in a gem, will help lift the beauty of God's story, message, and plan.
      1. Wow. From the video clips, this sounds a bit like proselytization to me by his use of language. I really hope that's not the case, that it's more educational than testimonial in nature.
        1. I agree with you Mark. Sounds like he is pushing his own convictions rather than presenting various views with impartiality.
        2. Gentlemen, the title of the course is "Free Grace Theology" not "An Overview of Several Theologies." I have read several books by Dr. Wilkins including his New Testament Commentary, all very good. I'm sure this course will be very educational. It ships tomorrow, the excitement is building!!
      2. Timothy, my reference to polarizing was regarding the military, which is not synonymous with "those who stand up and fight and protect the weak", even thought there are undoubtedly members of the military both past and present who have done so. For those who consider non-violence polarizing, apparently by their advocacy of violence (not the same as force), then I would stand with who advocate peaceful non-violence, which most defiantly is a core of my hermeneutical understanding of the scriptures. I am not advocating capitulation in any way, as I am certainly hopeful that the coursework will be well grounded and professional. I am simply pointing out that there are many, many Chaplains who are not affiliated with the mission, agenda, and priorities of the military who are qualified to bring outstanding education on the work and experience of Chaplains. The basis for my original post was to comment that there is much chaplaincy that takes place outside the context of the military, and hope that Logos will take advantage of the opportunity to broaden this experience to their customer community.
        1. Let's see if we can avoid unhelpful labels here. The author is a "assistant professor of Old Testament at University of Dubuque Theological Seminary". I'm looking forward to the resource becoming available to Logos. I'll provide my review of Dr. Schlimm's work after I read it.
          1. As a member of one of the peace churches (christian pacifism) I have serious concerns about this course being taught by an ex-ranger, ex-military chaplain. I want to state that I have not purchased this product yet, and am still contemplating the possibility. However, there are many areas of chaplaincy apart from military chaplaincy, and I sincerely hope that Jeff's course is not overly colored by recounts of warfare, military culture, or his personal interpretation of christian justification for violence and war. There are many, many outstanding chaplains who would have been available to produce an outstanding course on chaplaincy, and I am concerned that Logos sought an instructor who's particular credentials could be polarizing, when other candidates were available, although perhaps not as glamourous.
            1. I appreciate your comments,however whatever you mean by polarizing applied to those who stand up and fight and protect the weak,must also equally be applied to the pacifist. I would not agree with your premise(christian pacifism) ,but in all candor,If I did I would then want to see something that mirrored my hermeneutical understanding of the scriptures. I'd be concerned if Logos capitulated every time one of us disagreed with their choice. No one is neutral.Therefore I hope that we all will have honest God honoring debate on this issue.
            2. Timothy, my reference to polarizing was regarding the military, which is not synonymous with "those who stand up and fight and protect the weak", even thought there are undoubtedly members of the military both past and present who have done so. For those who consider non-violence polarizing, apparently by their advocacy of violence (not the same as force), then I would stand with those who choose peaceful non-violence, which most defiantly is a core of my hermeneutical understanding of the scriptures. I am not advocating capitulation in any way, as I am certainly hopeful that the coursework will be well grounded and professional. I am simply pointing out that there are many Chaplains who are not affiliated with the mission, agenda, and priorities of the military who are also qualified to bring outstanding education on the work and experience of Chaplains. The basis for my original post was to comment that there is much chaplaincy that takes place outside the context of the military, and hope that Logos will take advantage of the opportunity to broaden this experience to their customer community.
            3. 30 day money back guarantee!!