Ligonier Ministries is webcasting their upcoming conference “Tough Questions Christians Face”.  The conference takes place this weekend in Scottsdale, AZ and features R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, and John Macarthur.  They are charging a small fee of $5 to defray their costs.  If you are near the computer this weekend, this looks like a great use of your time!  You can register and get more info HERE.

Here’s the conference schedule to whet your appetite:

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26

2:00 - 3:00 p.m. Session #1 — Ligon Duncan
Has Science Disproved the Existence of God?

3:00 - 4:00 p.m. Session #2 — John MacArthur
Why Does God Allow so Much Suffering and Evil?

5:00 - 6:00 p.m. Session #3 — Questions & Answers

7:45 - 8:45 p.m. Session #4 — R.C. Sproul
If God is Sovereign, How Can Man be Free?

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27

9:00 - 10:00 a.m. Session #5 — John MacArthur
Is Jesus the Only Way?

10:45 - 11:45 a.m. Session #6 — Questions & Answers

1:30 - 2:30 p.m. Session #7 — Ligon Duncan
Should the Church Embrace Postmodernism?

3:45 - 4:30 p.m. Session #8 — R.C. Sproul
What is the “Gospel”?

It seems that we’ve been inundated of late with archeological “finds” that are the death knell of Christianity.  We read of the gnostic Gospel of Judas or the family tomb of Jesus- both were discredited some time ago but were recycled only to be discredited again.

Now we have the latest known as “Gabriel’s Revelation”.  Al Mohler, on his blog, does an excellent job of shedding light on this latest “crushing blow” to Christianity (note: quotation marks are used to enhance use of sarcasm).  Mohler references an article in TIME magazine written by David Van Biema and Tim McGirk that explains the recent controversy that has made headlines:

A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed “Gabriel’s Revelation” could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the years just before the birth of Jesus and yet — at least according to one Israeli scholar — it announces the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean that Jesus’ followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified. However, such a contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle them nor shake anyone’s faith. [Emphasis mine.]

The authors of this piece in TIME magazine obviously get it.  This is much ado about nothing.  Al Mohler, in his blog post, then rightly puts archeology in its place.  It is useful as a testimony to the validity of the gospel, but weak as a proof (to borrow a phrase from Hermann Bavinck).  Archeology is fraught with its own difficulties and academic biases.  Mohler’s conclusion gives us the firm place to stand:

Authentic Christianity is based upon the inscripturated revelation of God — the Bible — as our authority.  In the end, archaeology cannot prove or disprove the biblical text.  Nothing can be found, or not found, that should shake our faith in the total truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Word of God.  Archaeology can expand our knowledge and understanding, but cannot establish the authority for our faith.

That authority is the Word of God, and the Word of God alone.

(HT:  Al Mohler)

I was watching one of the news channels yesterday discussing the state of the Democratic Party contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The “expert” being interviewed was asked about the claims each were making in order to woo the so-called “superdelegates.” The interviewee responded in this way, “In Barack Obama’s reality, blah, blah, blah….in Hillary Clinton’s reality, blah, blah, blah.”

That type of language is all too commonplace. We can all have our own reality? In other words, we all have our own truth. This line of reasoning is not new, I realize. Some would call it post-modern (I’m still trying to figure out exactly what that means). If we all have our own reality then the term has no meaning at all. Think for a moment about the implications of each having their own reality. That may work in philosophical discussions, but if I’m in a restaurant I want the chef in MY reality. By that I mean, his reality may mean cyanide is a helpful spice. That’s not my reality. Of course, whether he believes cyanide to be a spice or not, does not change the reality that it’s poison.

This is where we are as a culture. It is what makes proclaiming the gospel that much more challenging and offensive to modern ears who do not believe in absolute realities, absolute truth. It is the growing challenge of the church to proclaim Him who is the way, the truth, and the life, in a world where people make stupid statements about “his and her reality” and get thoughtful nods, not puzzled looks, in response.

R.C. Sproul has written a fascinating review of There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind authored Antony Flew, the “notorious atheist” himself. Sproul gives us a helpful overview of Flew’s previous reasoning against God’s existence and then goes to show his movement toward theism as he deconstructs his own, and others, arguments for atheism. One senses that Flew is perhaps in process of coming to faith particularly as Sproul writes: Before the added appendices, Flew ends the body of the work itself with this statement: “Someday I may hear a Voice, that says, ‘Can you hear me now?’”

Interesting read.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

Dr. Al Mohler (President of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, KY) writes on his blog of the letter written by Albert Einstein one year before his death to Eric Gutkind. In that letter, Einstein indicates his lack of faith in a personal God and affirms a vague belief in some unnamed “force” in the universe (and this before George Lucas’ Star Wars).

What are we to make of this? If Einstein rejected faith in God, what does that say about the validity of Christianity? It says nothing. Einstein was blessed with a tremendous intellect and a scientific mind. However, the necessary preconditions for true scientific inquiry and discovery lie within the Christian worldview. The God who made and sustains all things is the true absolute constant in the universe. He is the constant that assures the viability of E=mc2. I believe Einstein HAD a faith- in science. He looked for unifying answers to life in it. His discoveries are no less valuable, though the presuppositions by which he ordered his life are sorely lacking. As Cornelius Van Til put it, Einstein had to borrow Christian “capital” in order to transact business in the scientific realm.

Mohler offers this accurate critique of Evangelicalism’s fascination with celebrity that is evident in some who’ve claimed Einstein as a theist:

Evangelical Christians are prone to over-excitement when any famous person, living or dead, is claimed as a believer in God. This is not an attractive habit, and it often leads to intellectual embarrassment. The truth of the Gospel and the reality of the self-revealing God are not enhanced by vague expressions of a non-theistic spirituality or a sense of nothing more than an inexplicable sense of meaning in the cosmos.

Beyond this, the witness of an honest Christian is far more powerful than a listing of the rich, intelligent, and powerful who may or may not have believed in some kind of God. Attempts to claim Einstein for theism reveal a deep intellectual insecurity.

Our faith rests not on the affirmations of the bright and beautiful but on the self-revelation of the God “in whom we live and move and have our being ” (Acts 17:28). Apart from Him, we have no basis for scientific inquiry, rational thought, or life itself.

Wow- great video of Tim Keller in a roundtable discussion at Westminster Theological Seminary discussing apologetics and his new book The Reason for God can be accessed here.

(HT: Tullian Tchividjian)