Paul insists, "There is none who seeks after God." I have often engaged peole in conversations who profess to have a desire to know God but who, after careful thought, have agreed that their search is more for a good argument than for a living God.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
“we all worship the One God, the same God”
GOD of Islam: God is impersonal, not manifest in the trinity, divorced from His creation, the author of evil as well as good, not a father.
GOD of Christianity: God is personal, manifest in the trinity, simulateously transcendent but involved in creation, the author of only good, a father to his people.
...While it's true that relationships centered on opposing radicals who intend to kill others are beneficial, that doesn't mean Christians and Muslims worship the SAME God, for we don't.
"To seek God is an expression frequently used in Scripture to denote the acts of religion and piety. It supposes the need all men have to go out of themselves to seek elsewhere their support, their life, and thappiness, and the distance at which naturally we are from God, and God from us, - we by our perversity, and He by His just wrath. It teaches how great is the blindness of those who seek anything else but God, in order to be happy, since true wisdom consists in seeking God for this, for He alone is the sovereign good to man. It also teaches us that during the whole course of our life God proposes Himself as the object that men are to seek, Isa. lv. 6, for the present is the time of His calling them, and if they do not find Him, it is owing to their perversity, which causes them to flee from Him, or to seek Him in a wrong way. To seek God is, in general, to answer to all His relative perfections; that is to say, to respect and adore His sovereign majesty, to instruct ourselves in His word as the primary truth, to obey His commandments as the commandments of the sovereign Legislator of men, to have recourse to Him by prayer as the origin of all things. In particular, it is to have recourse to His mercy by repentance; it is to place our confidence in Him; it is to ask for his Holy Spirit to support us, and to implore His protection and blessing; and all this through Him who is the way to the Father, and who declares that no man cometh to the Father but by him."
This expresses well man's dependence upon and satisfaction in God, and at the same time the depravity and fault which keeps man from Him apart from His grace.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Diamonds May Have Jump-Started Life on Earth. Doesn't the term "mother of all diamonds" and doesn't suggesting someone is a "diamond in the rough" now take on new significance?
1. This shows how determined natural man is to try to find ANY possibility ... in their quest to suppress or deny the truth.
2. And we get criticized for taking matters on the basis of faith? I quote "When primitive molecules landed on the surface of these hydrogenated diamonds in the atmosphere of early Earth, a few billion years ago, the resulting reaction may have been sufficient enough to generate more complex organic molecules that eventually gave rise to life, the researchers say."
3. Even if this was possible, it's another great step to show evidence it actually happened. (Not to mention explain the rise of intelligence, the origin and sustenance of laws, etc.)
4. "Hydrogenated diamond advances to the best of all possible origin-of-life platforms," the researchers contend." - To form this opinion, they first had to deny theistic presuppositions.
4. How many diamonds are there? How much time? Are they opening the possibility of "multiple" origins of life? Or, was this possibility so rare that it takes even "more faith" to trust it occured? And are various stages of life found having originated from diamonds exposed to hydrogen in the natural realm even today?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him nothing was made that has been made. IN HIM WAS LIFE, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." (John 1:1-5)
[By the way, it's great to be back from vacation and a Missions Trip outside the country where communications were voluntarily forfeited for a time in order to focus on the ministry]
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Order of Decrees
|To create mankind
|To elect some to eternal life and the rest to eternal separation
|To permit the fall of man
|To permit the fall of man - physical and moral deterioration
|Gift of free will whereby each may do all that is required of him
|To permit the fall of man
|To elect some to eternal life, leaving the rest to their just deserts
|The atonement of Christ - where all men are made savable, with salvation conditioned on individual faith.
|The atonement of Christ - where satisfaction is made for all men and all are given sufficient grace to believe, if they will
|The atonement of Christ - to make possible the gift of sufficient grace and give this grace to all
|Gift of the law and gospel to illuminate the way and persuade men to walk in it.
|The atonement of Christ - where satisfaction is made for the elect thus securing their redemption
|To elect some to receive moral ability and the necessary grace to believe
|To predestine to eternal life those whom He foresaw would believe of their own free will
|Salvation of all who freely cooperate with this grace
|Gift of Christ to (expiate past sin and) set a good example
|The gift of the Holy Spirit to regenerate and sanctify the redeemed
|The gift of the Holy Spirit to sanctify believers
|Sanctification of all who cooperate with the sufficient grace
|Sanctification by cooperation with God's grace
|Acceptance of all who walk in the right way
Sunday, July 20, 2008
That we are still trying to sell evolution to a large part of the public bothers him. “It is weird in many ways that natural selection is still debated,” he says. “But it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it.” Indeed, Dawkins refuses to share a stage with creationists. “I don’t like giving them the oxygen of respectability, the feeling that if they’re up on a platform debating with a scientist, there must be real disagreement. One side of the debate is wholly ignorant. It would be as though you knew nothing of physics and were passionately arguing against Einstein’s theory of relativity.”
How laughable - maybe it is because it is a non-falsifiable theory - a "just so" story that presupposes it's conclusions. A modern fairy tale built on a cosmic accident that reduces morality to brain chemistry and purposeless gene-passing.
Don't be fooled, only the poseur is afraid of debating his adversaries for fear of exposure.
Friday, July 18, 2008
"...a great many men and women have a dull, hard, angry sense of being oppressed by the sciences. They are frustrated by endless scientific boastings. They suspect that, as an institution, the scientific community holds them in contempt. They feel no little distaste for those speaking in its name, They have a right to feel this way." Thus David Berlinski, who characterizes himself as a "secular Jew", opens his critique of militant atheism. This short, easy-to-read volume seeks to establish the limits of scientific inquiry as well as counter the claims of atheist's who use science for off-the-wall philosophical purposes.
In Chapter One, "No Gods Before Me", Berlinski examines some of these boastful scientific claims. Proclaiming his own naturalistic worldview to be the default position, Richard Dawkins, after proudly setting forth the humility of the scientific community, suggests that "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane". (p.7). Not to be outdone, fellow Oxford professor Peter Atkins "is ardent in his atheism" as well.
"In the course of an essay denouncing not only theology but poetry and philosophy as well, he observes favorably of himself that scientists "are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality, and intellectually honest." It goes without saying, Atkins adds, that "there is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence." Science is, after all, "the apotheosis of the intellect and the consummation of the Renaissance."
These comical declarations may be abbreviated by observing that Atkins is persuaded that not only is science a very good thing, but no other thing is good at all.
Neither scientific credibility nor sound good sense is at in any of these declarations. They are absurd; they are understood to be absurd; and what is more, assent is demanded just because they are absurd. "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs," the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, "in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories" (my emphasis).
Why should any discerning man or woman take the side of science, or anything else, under these circumstances? It is because, Lewontin explains, "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
If one is obliged to accept absurdities for fear of a Divine Foot, imagine what prodigies of effort would be required were the rest of the Divine Torso found wedged at the door and with some justifiable irritation demanding to be let in? " (p. 9)
In chapter Two "Nights of Doubt", Berlinski touches on the moral argument. Rightly agreeing with Ivan Karamazov in declaring that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted, he undercuts the idea that "religion poisons everything". Of special value is the "DOUBLE-ENTRY BOOKKEEPING" that militant atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are known for.
"For scientists persuaded that there is no God, there is no finer pleasure than recounting the history of religious brutality and persecution. Sam Harris is in this regard especially enthusiastic, The End of Faith recounting in lurid but lingering detail the methods of torture used in the Spanish Inquisition. If the readers require pertinent information concerning the strappado, or other instruments of doctrinal persuasion, they may turn to his pages. There is no need to argue the point. A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. If the Inquisition no longer has the power to compel our indignation, the Moslem world often seems quite prepared to carry the burden of exuberant depravity in its place.
Nonetheless, there is this awkward fact: The twentieth not an age of faith, and it was awful. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot will never be counted among the religious leaders of mankind." (p. 19)
Page 24 gives a detailed account of these attrocities, but on these, are utopian atheists remain silent. Berlinksi points out that atheist "Christopher Hitchens is prepared to denounce the Vatican for the ease with which it diplomatically accomodated Hitler, but about Hitler, the Holocaust, or the Nazis themselves he has nothing to say." (p. 27)
Chapter 3 "Horses do not fly" is, in my opinion, the weakest of the chapters. It deals with the nature of the evidence used is examining the existence of God. In this area, Berlinksi comes close to the heart of the issue. He writes, "Neither the premises nor the conclusions of any scientific theory mention the existence of God. I have checked this carefully. The theories by themselves are unrevealing. If science is to champion atheism, the requisite demonstration must appeal to something in the sciences that is not quite a matter of what they say, what they imply, or what they reveal". In one sense, this is the heart of presuppositionalism, that the question of God's existence is not one that can be approached from a purely naturalistic worldview. That isn't to say that there is no natural evidence for God, but rather that is insufficient proof, relegating believers to the "God of the gaps" philosophy. What Berlinski fails to examine, however, is the validity of naturalistic science in an atheistic worldview. Berlinski does expose the self-defeating view of David Hume's analysis of abstract and experimental reasoning in relation to metaphysical claims (p. 57). What he doesn't do is examine the validity of knowledge, reason, or the uniformity of nature without God. In avoiding this issue, he gives the worldview of naturalism too much creedence, then again, this is to be expected from one who labels himself a "secular Jew".
From this point, Berlinksi begins to deal with some of the classical arguments for God's existence. Chapter 4 "The Cause" starts with the cosmological argument, specifically interacting with the works of Thomas Aquinas. While he admits, and rightly so, that "This is not by itself an argument for the existence of God" (p. 64), he makes an astute observation concerning materialistic assumptions. Because we "cannot allow a Divine foot in the door"...materialism hinders scientific inquiry. After all, what can materialism tell us about a time when there was no matter?
Berlinksi goes on to examine other suggestive evidences such as The Ontological Argument (Chapter 5), and the Watchmaker Argument (Chaper 6). While none of these arguments are conclusive, Berlinski does a very good job of updating them with modern evidence. He then expresses the ramifications of Materialistic presumptions in dealing with (or ignoring) these issues. In doing so, he shows the enormous philosophical bias exhibited by our modern day atomists. This can be best summed up in the following statement:
"Scientists," the physicist Paul Davies has observed, "are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth—the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient 'coincidences' and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal."
These arguments are very much of a piece with those that Fred Hoyle advanced after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis. "The universe," he grumbled afterward, "looks like a put-up job." An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick. When aliens are dropped from the argument, there remains a very intriguing question: Why do the constants and parameters of theoretical physics obey such tight constraints?
If this is one question, it leads at once to another. The laws of nature are what they are. They are fundamental. But why are they true? Why do material objects attract one another throughout the universe with a kind of brute and aching inevitability? Why is space-and-time curved by the presence of matter? Why is the electron charged?
Why? Yes, why?
An appeal to still further physical laws is, of course, ruled out on the grounds that the fundamental laws of nature are fundamental. An appeal to logic is unavailing. The laws of nature do not seem to be logical truths. The laws of nature must be intrinsically rich enough to specify the panorama of the universe, and the universe is anything but simple. As Newton remarks, "Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things."
If the laws of nature are neither necessary nor simple, why, then, are they true?
Questions about the parameters and laws of physics form a single insistent question in thought: Why are things as they are when what they are seems anything but arbitrary?
One answer is obvious. It is the one that theologians have always offered: The universe looks like a put-up job because it is a put-up job. That this answer is obvious is no reason to think it false. Nonetheless, the answer that common sense might suggest is deficient in one respect: It is emotionally unacceptable because a universe that looks like a put-up job puts off a great many physicists.
They have thus made every effort to find an alternative. Did you imagine that science was a disinterested pursuit of the truth?
Well, you were wrong." (The Devil's Delusion - pp. 110-112)
For a book that tries to approach the question of God from a naturalistic worldview, it does a pretty good job. The main weakness of this work is that it doesn't examine the any of the preconditions of science in the atomist philosophy. While Berlinski does a good job of outlining scientific arguments for God's existence (particularly in chapter 6), the question of God's existence is ultimately not a scientific question, especially since modern science "cannot allow a divine foot in the door". This book, however, is very good from an evidential perspective. It addresses the boastings of our modern militant atheists, and is quite readable and entertaining. Highly recommended.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The covenants are major dimensions (or acts) of this drama. The goal is to see the work and person of Christ in light of the Old Testament and to highlight aspects that we have possibly overlooked. Christ’s work is intimately related to and fulfills each of the five covenants (with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David) that God initiated in the Old Testament.
For each of these covenants, it is helpful to highlight five special features (see Scott Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God’s Covenant Love in Scripture):
1. The covenant mediator (the person God makes the covenant with) and his covenant role (whom the mediator represents).
2. The blessings promised in the covenant.
3. The conditions (or curses) of the covenant.
4. The “sign” by which the covenant will be celebrated and remembered.
5. The “form” that God’s family takes as a result of the covenant.
1. The covenant with Adam (Gen. 1:26–2:3; Hos. 6:7). The word “covenant” isn’t used, but the story of Adam and Eve is told in covenantal language. Adam is the covenant mediator in his role as husband. God promises blessings—that their union will be fruitful and their offspring will fill the earth and rule over it. God establishes a sign by which the covenant will be remembered and celebrated—the Sabbath, the seventh day of rest. And God imposes one condition that they must keep to fulfill their obligation under the covenant—that they not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God attaches a curse for disobedience—that they will surely die. By this covenant, God’s family assumes the form of the marriage bond between husband and wife.
What Is the Noahic Covenant?
2. The covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:8–17). The word “covenant” is used in the case of Noah, as God promises never again to destroy the world by flood. The covenant is made with all humanity, through the mediator, Noah, in his role as the father of his family. The covenant includes blessings to Noah and his family (that they will be fruitful and fill the earth) and conditions that must be obeyed (not to drink the blood of any animals, not to shed human blood). The sign of the covenant is the rainbow in the sky. By this covenant, God’s people assume the form of a domestic household, an extended family.
What Is the Abrahamic Covenant?
3. The covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:1–14; 22:16–18). God swears to give Abraham a great land and to bless his descendants, who will become a great nation. God makes the covenant with the mediator Abraham in his representative role as chieftain. God promises the blessings of land and great nationhood for his descendants, and through them to bless all the nations of the earth. The sign of the covenant is the mark of circumcision. Circumcision is also the condition that Abraham and his descendants must obey in order to keep the covenant. By this covenant, God’s family takes a “tribal” form.
4. The covenant with Moses (Ex. 3:4–10; 6:7; 19:5–6). By this covenant, made with the mediator Moses in his representative role as the judge and liberator of Israel, God swears to be Israel’s God and Israel swears to worship no other but the Lord God alone. The blessings promised are that they will be God’s precious and chosen people. The conditions of the covenant are that they must keep God’s Law and commandments. The covenant sign is the Passover, which each year commemorates Israel’s birth as a nation. By this covenant, God’s family assumes the form of a “holy nation, a kingdom of priests.”
What Is the Davidic Covenant?
5. The covenant with David (2 Sam. 7:8–19). God promises to establish the mediator David’s “house” or kingdom forever, through David’s heir, who will also build a temple to God’s name. To David in his role as king, God promises to make David’s son his son and to punish him if he does wrong but never take away his royal throne: “Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever.” Through the blessings of this kingdom God promises to give wisdom to all the nations. The sign of the covenant will be the throne and temple to be built by David’s son, Solomon. By this covenant, God’s family grows to take the form of a royal empire, a national kingdom.
What Is the New Covenant?
6. The New Covenant of Jesus (Matt. 16:17–19; 26:28). The sixth and final covenant is made by the mediator Jesus, who by his cross and resurrection assumes the role of royal high priest and fulfills all the promises God made in the previous covenants. The prophets, especially Isaiah and Jeremiah, had taught Israel to hope for a Messiah who would bring “a new covenant,” through which God’s law would be written on men’s and women’s hearts (see Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:8–12). The conditions of the covenant are that men and women believe in Jesus, be baptized, eat and drink his flesh and blood in remembrance at communion, and live by all that he taught. The Lord’s Supper is the sign of the New Covenant. By this covenant, God establishes his family in its final form as a universal (katholicos or “catholic” in Greek) worldwide kingdom, which Jesus calls his Church.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Ex-Traffic Cop Says He's Jesus
Remote Russian Sect Revolves Around Self-Proclaimed Messiah
"Deep in the heart of Siberia's birch forests lies one of the largest and most remote religious communes of the planet. More than 5,000 people have left their families and their homes to move here and join the Church of the Last Testament, which has more than 10,000 followers worldwide. The church centers on one man. He is known simply as Vissarion, meaning "he who gives new life," or simply as the teacher, and he claims that he is Jesus Christ."
These poor deluded people need to be directed down the straight and narrow path.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Sunday, July 6, 2008
(4) part teaching on Covenant, New Covenenat and Dispensational Theology: Understanding the relation of the Old/New Covenants:
I found John Piper's perspective very interesting:
John Piper's position
John Piper has some things in common with each of these views, but does not classify himself within any of these three camps. He is probably the furthest away from dispensationalism, although he does agree with dispensationalism that there will be a millennium.
Many of his theological heroes have been covenant theologians (for example, many of the Puritans), and he does see some merit in the concept of a pre-fall covenant of works, but he has not taken a position on their specific conception of the covenant of grace.
In regards to his views on the Mosaic Law, he seems closer to new covenant theology than covenant theology, although once again it would not work to say that he precisely falls within that category.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Many exhibits at “world-class” museums cost between 20 and 50 million dollars. But the entire Creation Museum right outside of Cincinnati, Ohio, cost just $27 million—and it is definitely world class. On the other hand, however, it’s not world class.
The Creation Museum goes far beyond mere science. It doesn’t elevate man’s intellect by using science to “prove” ScriptureIn comparison with the Creation Museum, “world-class” museums—even museums like the Roosevelt Museum of Natural History in New York City or the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.—seem paltry and commonplace. Most impressive is the scope of the museum. The individual displays—mounted skeletons, animatronic dinosaurs that turn their bodies in realistic motion, and mounted placards which present science and Scripture—these are amazing, but the big picture is just that: big. Bigger than anyone would have expected.
The lobby itself rivals any full-size exhibit at a secular museum. A young child plays with a squirrel next to two small dinosaurs that watch the visitors walk under giant cypress trees. The walls, the floors, the rocks—everything is carefully handcrafted. The rock-lined waterfall and pool in the lobby is full of so-called “living fossils” like garfish as well as “modern” creatures like turtles and minnows.
I love Lucy. I don’t mean famous TV comedienne Lucille Ball; I mean Lucy—the nickname given to a fossil skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis. The museum’s replica of the Lucy skeleton is just one of the many similar displays that show very plainly how scientists’ presuppositions influence their conclusions. A scientist who believes the biblical account of creation would see nothing more than an “ape from southern Africa” (which is literally what its name means) in the assortment of bones now hanging in the display case. But a scientist who has been conditioned to see millions of years and evolution will probably find a missing link in those bones—despite the conspicuous lack of feet, hands, or even an intact hipbone....
The Creation Museum goes far beyond mere science. It doesn’t elevate man’s intellect by using science to “prove” Scripture. Instead, God’s Word is placed first and human reason is last.
Between these exhibits and the Creation Walk is a dark, graffiti-covered brick wall. It shows in stark detail the state of Western society. Abortion, gay marriage, school violence. The brick wall ends in a blatant expression of the prevailing social theory. No longer is absolute morality something that can be determined—even by humanity.
The Creation Museum shows that the problems in our culture aren’t the disease—they are merely symptoms of a much more serious cultural infection. Rejecting the biblical account of history led to the rejection of biblical authority in all other areas. By revisiting God’s Word in Genesis, we can realize the full breadth of Scripture and be ready to give an account for the hope we hold.
The Creation Walk opens into the Garden of Eden—the perfect world God created before sin. It shows the first man and woman living peacefully with the other creatures—including, of course, dinosaurs. But this paradise didn’t last. Mankind broke God’s law, cursing all of creation and staining the human race with sin forever. The museum shows the vast array of evil that has blossomed as a result of that single act of rebellion thousands of years ago.
The Creation Walk shifts focus to what is arguably the most spectacular event in the earth’s history after Creation and before Christ’s Resurrection: a Flood that covered the entire earth and destroyed every living creature on its surface.
In my opinion, the museum is worth visiting solely on the basis of the Ark and Flood exhibits. Visitors are shown the massive scale of the ark, potential details of its construction, and the population’s probable attitude that pervaded the pre-Flood world. They see animatronic workers discussing the folly of building a huge boat; after all, science has “proven” a worldwide flood is impossible. “Ever since our fathers died,” say the scowling models, “all things continue as they have since the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:3-7).
Computer animations show how tectonic activity on the ocean floor and huge tsunami-producing earthquakes could combine to cover the earth in water in just over a month. Alongside these displays are placards that answer common questions about the Flood. Secular scientists claim that the geological strata show less complex organisms at the bottom and more complex ones as you go up, attributing this to the evolutionary process over millions and millions of years. But if we consider the order of burial during the cataclysmic activity of the Flood, it makes perfect sense that sea creatures would be buried first, followed by invertebrates and finally by mammals and other vertebrates. The placard shown here gives an example of how the sequence could have worked during the first few hours of the Flood.
After finishing with the Flood and describing the events surrounding the Tower of Babel (see Genesis 11), the museum makes an important point. Contrary to most evolutionists, all humans are of one blood (Acts 17), descended from Noah. In the light of true biblical history, the museum tackles tough issues like racism, genocide, apartheid, and abortion—all problems that come from man’s rejection of God’s Word.
When the truths of Genesis are taken at face value, the redemptive acts in the play of human history—Christ and the Cross—fit together the way God intended them to. Sin, judgment, atonement, redemption, repentance, faith—all these doctrines are foundationally rooted in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Instead of stopping with those first eleven chapters, however, the museum tour ends by simply presenting the gospel and leaving the rest between the visiting individual and the Lord of Creation.
Somewhat surprisingly, the museum does not devote inordinate amounts of space to “disproving” evolutionary ideas or “proving” creation. The displays are scientifically accurate and easy to understand, but this isn’t the focus. Instead, the museum demonstrates the difference between the evolutionary mindset and the mindset that Christians should have from Scripture. We have the same evidence, the same earth, the same universe, but it is our presuppositions that lead us to our conclusions. We know from Romans 1:20 that we can clearly see God’s hand in nature—the question is whether we have the courage to submit ourselves to Him. If we refuse, then we are “without excuse.”
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
A New Day for Apologetics
People young and old are flocking to hear — and be changed by — winsome arguments for the Christian faith.
"It wasn't too many years ago that scholars were writing off apologetics because we live in a postmodern world where young people are not supposed to be interested in things like the historical Jesus," Strobel says. "The biggest shock is that among people who communicated to me that they had found faith in Christ through apologetics, the single biggest group was 16- to 24-year-olds."
Last summer, hundreds had to be turned away from a Focus on the Family- sponsored apologetics conference for teenagers that drew an overflow crowd of 1,500. Meanwhile, the hotbeds of apologetics educationBiola University and its Talbot School of Theology (CT, June 2003), Southern Evangelical Seminary, and Liberty Universityare crammed with students pursuing graduate degrees in philosophy and apologetics.