Friday, June 13, 2025

Part I

---

Well, It’s Happened: Israel Strikes Iran, Targeting Key Nuclear Installations

Well, it’s happened. Early in the morning, Friday morning in Iran, forces from Israel attacked at least five different cities concentrating on Iran’s nuclear capability. Reports were the strikes had hit at Isfahan, Arak, Kermanshah, and Tabriz. There are other locations as well, and even in Tehran there were some fires burning as reported by major media. This was something that was seen coming, but no one knew exactly when it would come, but in retrospect, even some comments made by the President of the United States and other world officials made clear there was a sense that Israel was about to attack, and frankly, it hadn’t been subtle.

Israel had been sending very strong messages over the course of the last several weeks, indeed, reaching back some months, but particularly over the last three to four weeks, the Office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Prime Minister himself, had been making very clear that Israel thought now was the time to strike Iran, given the fact that Iran was guilty of two things. Number one, seeking as fast as possible to develop enough nuclear material to create about 15 nuclear bombs, and secondly, it remains steadfastly determined to eradicate Israel. That’s not just an accusation, that is an official national goal of the Islamic regime.

Once the Israeli attacks were underway, the Israeli Prime Minister made the statement that a nuclear-powered Iran, that is an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, represented, “a clear and present danger to Israel’s very survival.” That’s the way Israel has been talking about this situation now for a number of years, and especially in the last few weeks and months, the argument has become more public and more pointed. But there’s another development, and that has to do with the fact that in previous strikes, just a matter of last year, when Israel struck against Iran, it was very clear that Israel had successfully degraded much of the Iranian defense capability when it came to a defense against an aerial attack.

Now, the situation really is complicated because Iran has been about this program of nuclear enrichment aiming towards a nuclear weapon for a long time. But the history there is more interesting than most Americans might understand. In one sense, Iran’s nuclear program goes back to the 1950s. That means it goes back to the period when Iran was a key ally to Western nations, most importantly, to Britain and to the United States. Back to the reign of the Shah, and even going back further in terms of Iran’s history, especially after the Second World War, America and Britain both wanted Iran to be very powerful, very stable, and they also wanted Iran to be self-sufficient. Therefore, nuclear power was one of the assets that the Western powers were encouraging Iran to develop, and it’s, of course, more than that.

The Western powers basically helped to develop at least what was started as a nuclear power program in Iran. That really began to gain steam in the 1970s, but then came the Islamic Revolution in 1979, full halt on Western efforts to try to encourage Iran in any sense. As a matter of fact, Iran after the Islamic Revolution, became the determined enemy of the West. Once the Shah had been toppled, the Ayatollahs were in control, it was very clear that the Shiite regime saw the United States, clearly identified as “the Great Satan,” as being in league with Israel and just as much a danger and an obstacle to the Islamic Revolution and its worldwide ambitions as Iran saw it.

What was not known, at least to most Americans, or for that matter, to most people around the world at the time, was that one of the chief ambitions of the Islamic revolutionaries and the Ayatollahs was to gain control not only of the Iranian military in general, and by the way, right now, the two most powerful militaries in the Middle East are, not by coincidence, Iran and Israel, but we now know, and frankly, it’s been known for some time, that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, the most elite of the military units in Iran, was tasked by the Ayatollahs with securing whatever nuclear material might have been left after the fall of the Shah, and then to continue the Iranian ambition to produce not only nuclear power but nuclear bombs.

And Israel has known this. The United States has known this. Our allies have known this. That’s why there’s been an effort over the course of the last three decades to try to constrain Iran’s military plans when it comes to nuclear bombs, by using a form of sanctions, and it’s sometimes matched with a program of increasing some kind of incentive for Iran not to go further in developing nuclear materials. By the way, the issue there is the development not only of fissionable material, but of weapons-grade material. And here’s what we now know. We now know that even though it was believed that it would take years for Iran to move from an early stage of that development to weapons-grade nuclear substance, it is now known it can be done very, very quickly.

As a matter of fact, the attack that Israel undertook starting early this morning, might be based upon Israel’s military intelligence telling it that it has already moved to a matter of hours before Iran might have one or several nuclear weapons. And when you consider the fact that Iran has officially adopted as one of its national aims, the elimination of Israel as a state, well, you can understand why Israel would take this kind of action. Now, did Israel do this alone? Is it acting as a lone actor in the world stage? Well, in one sense, it is, in another sense, nothing is that easy. But it’s very clear that the United States has been moving in a different direction than Israel, at least in the short-term tactical sense, in the relationship with Iran.

Iran has been seen as an immediate threat to Israel. Israel has made very clear over the course of the last several months that it would, if necessary, act unilaterally. Now, that is exactly what Israel has done. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, made very clear the United States was not involved, and Secretary Rubio also gave a direct message to the Iranian regime. Secretary Rubio said, “Let me be clear, Iran should not target US interests or personnel.” In the grand scheme of things, the strategic understanding of the United States and Israel along with our closest allies are pretty much together, and that includes recognizing the so-called Axis of Resistance, that is, an axis of terror organizations, militias, and threats to world peace radiating from Iran.

They would be located particularly not only in Iran, but also in Iraq and in Syria, also in the Palestinian territories, and in Yemen, when you look at the threat now represented by the Houthi rebels. So groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, all a part of this Axis of Resistance. And there is no doubt that it’s not just Iran, but the partners in this axis who’ve been determined to eliminate the very existence of Israel. Israel knows that, it was determined to act, it has now acted. Where do we go from here? Well, the Israeli Prime Minister made clear that this is not a one-time strike. This is going to be an ongoing effort. Also, you had a senior military official there in Israel say that the people of Israel should be advised that this will not be a promise of only unbroken success.

In other words, there’s a warning that there will be attacks coming from Iran on Israel, and the entire nation has been put on alert. Israel’s also closed Ben Gurion International Airport. That’s something that should be expected under these circumstances. It is also being reported that other civilian airports in the entire region had been shut down as a defensive measure. In keeping with the tradition of Israel’s military attacks, it went right after senior leaders. And as of early this morning, the regime there in Iran has confirmed the fact that in one of the first of Israel’s strikes this morning, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami, was killed.

And that has been now not only claimed by Israel, but confirmed by Iranian authorities. That, once again, is an indication of how Israel works in this kind of thing. Israel has already eliminated, a matter of years ago, several of the senior nuclear scientists there in Iran, but taking out the senior commander of the most elite military group in Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, that is sending a very clear signal. The confirmation from Iran coming so quickly also sends a very clear signal, and Iran has indicated that it will retaliate. It threatens, of course, to retaliate successfully. Now, I mentioned the fact that the two biggest militaries in the Middle East right now, the two most powerful, are Iran and Israel.

But as Christians, let’s understand there is a lot more at stake than just military armament or even the size of the military itself. We are looking at the fact that there are opposing worldviews here, and theology still matters. The Islamic Revolution was not a secular revolution, and Israel, well, Israel is considered to be the avowed enemy of Iran, or Iran, more popularly, has declared itself the avowed enemy of Israel because it is absolutely opposed to a Jewish state. Militaries matter, military strategies matter, morality matters, and yes, in a situation like this, we as Christians have to be the first to understand theology matters too. We’ll be following the situation with you closely.

Part II

---

Is It Possible to Go a Day Without Sinning? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

All right, let’s go to questions of some listeners. I always appreciate these. You can send in your own by simply writing me at mail@albertmohler.com. 

First question comes in from a 14-year-old young man. He asked the question, “Do you believe it is possible to go an entire day without sinning?” My answer is no. As a matter of fact, I think that almost in asking the question, you can’t help but sin. And in this case, I’m not pointing to this 14-year-old young man and saying, “This is unique.” No, I think this is what it means to be human. It’s what it means to be a sinner. Even as we’re trying to think of ourselves as potentially free from sin for any period of time, it’s going to be very difficult for that not to be translated immediately into sin, whether the sin of pride or the sin of despair. 

Now, I like the way this boy asked the question. I’m not saying that you can’t go a period of time without sinning when you mention a specific sin or you’re thinking about a specific temptation. And I think the scriptural worldview tells us that we can gain some victory over that sin. We are to resist sin. We are, for one thing, to keep ourselves busy doing that which is good, so that we don’t have the time or imagination or all the rest to give ourselves to that which is sinful. But when it comes to not sinning, well, let me just give you the really bad news. The entire complex of the way we live is complicated with sin just about at every turn. We’re sinful creatures. And the sin is so much a part of the complex of our lives and thinking is so much a part of the internecine workings of our hearts, quite frankly, it’s impossible for us to come to terms with this and even for us individually to see it for what it is.

Now, one of the great examples I want to offer to you, not for discouragement, but for encouragement, is the example of the great reformer, Martin Luther, one of the most significant Christian leaders of any era, one of the great leaders of the Reformation in the 16th century. At least in part, Luther’s discovery of the gospel came as a result of his despair over his own sin. Now, he was a monk, and as a young monk, he had a father confessor, a priest to whom he went and confessed his sins. And Luther’s was a very kind older priest by the name of von Staupitz. And Luther would go to him and confess his sins, but as soon as he left the confessional, he’d realize he’s sinned again. He’d go back in and confess further. And eventually, all of von Staupitz’s time was going to be taken up hearing the confession of Martin Luther. 

Luther wasn’t wrong, but as Von Staupitz advised him, this is not the way the Lord would have him to think about sin. But Martin Luther wasn’t wrong. He understood his sinfulness. He understood that even when he tries to gain victory over sin, he can sometimes sin by pride or, as I say, even by anxiety or despair, if he sees himself not winning the battle against sin. And this is where Martin Luther was driven to the gospel. And of course, it was the Scripture that revealed the gospel to him, “The just shall live by his faith.” And this is why Martin Luther eventually would also make clear the fact that even a preacher preaching is not going to be able to sin sometimes while preaching.

Maybe it’s just a self-centered thought. Maybe it’s just a stray imagination. Maybe it’s fear. It could be just about anything, but as Luther said, “The preacher still has to preach the word of God.” The mother still has to take care of her children. The father still has to perform his duties in work and in the home. And we’re never going to do those things sinlessly. And we’re certainly not going to go a day without sinning. It’s one of the reasons why, by the way, in the Lord’s Prayer, we are told to ask the Lord to forgive us our sins, and trespasses, and to give us our daily bread. I think that daily cycle becomes pretty clear. Luther found his comfort only in the gospel of Jesus Christ and only in the assurance of the fact that salvation comes to sinners through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And it’s not our righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ, which is, by faith, imputed to us, that is the only righteousness that will suffice. But I want to say to this 14-year-old, you are called to fight sin, and you are to fight it boldly and courageously. One of the ways you fight sin, by the way, is being busy in the things that are righteous and good and proper. We’re to do everything we can to prevent ourselves from giving sin an opportunity. And again, my answer to you is not an encouragement that you should despair. It is rather an encouragement that you must cling to Christ.

Part III

---

Is My Desire, as a Young Woman, to be an Optometrist Wrong? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

Okay, next I hear from a young woman, 17 years old, and she writes about her life plans. She says she’s been educated in a very conservative Christian homeschool co-op. She says her dream for several years now has been to be an optometrist. And she says, she mentioned it to her class, and she received pushback because they didn’t believe it was right for her as a woman to pursue a job other than wife and motherhood. Certainly, something as demanding as a medical job. She says, “I was confused by this.” She says, “I guess I want to become a wife and mother eventually, but right now at least my desire is to be an optometrist. Is that wrong?” Well, let me put this in perspective.

I think it’s wrong, I will say, for a young woman your age not to be thinking about the fulfillment of creation order in God’s calling in being a wife and a mother, unless you’ve been given the gift of celibacy for some kind of Christian service, I think being a wife and mother is properly something that should be very close in terms of your thinking. But I don’t think you’re wrong to want to enter into a medical field. I don’t think you’re wrong to want to be trained as an optometrist. I think there are a lot of women who, by the way, Christian women, totally faithful women, who know how to keep this in proportion or have at least figured that out. For example, there are many women who have a lot of medical training, but they are also committed to the priority of being wives and mothers.

My own mother was a registered nurse. She quit working the day I was born. She didn’t go back to work until my youngest brother had gone off to college. My wife, very highly educated, also, by the way, trained in the medical field, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. However, for the Christian, male or female and their different roles here, it means keeping things in proper proportion. So I want to tell you, I don’t think you’re wrong to want to be an optometrist. We need God-honoring optometrists. They do much good for all who need their services and their medical assistance. And I don’t think it’s wrong for you to be very interested in this at this stage in your life. I would just pray for you as you pray and seek to be faithful, that all these things would fall into proper proportion. And it’s a continuing conversation I’m sure you’re going to have with your friends. Maybe you can add a bit of this contextual biblical thinking to the conversation.

Part IV

---

Did God Will My Brother’s Death? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

Okay, next, a really big issue. An older Christian writes in asking about the sovereignty of God. This listener says, “I believe the Bible to be the word of God, the true authority for our lives and for all of life.” And she says, “I’m having difficulty understanding the sovereignty of God.” She says, “I’ve heard many in my church say that everything that happens is God’s will, that God controls everything.” And then she asks, “Is that the same thing as God being sovereign?” Well, let me tell you, I think the sovereignty of God as presented in Scripture as absolutely comprehensive. I don’t believe there is any compromise, mitigation, any diminishment of the sovereignty of God in any sense in Scripture. I believe that God simply is the sovereign Lord of the universe.

And I believe that all things come as the result of his providential care and his sovereignty is sovereign rule over the entire cosmos. I believe that all that comes to pass eventually is answered by the decrees and operations of God’s will. But it’s also true that God has ordained not only primary causes but secondary causes. And God has also willed that human beings be moral agents, that we have moral responsibility in the very real experience of making choices. So I think the two things are true at the same time. I think that we make real choices, that we bear full responsibility, real responsibility for our choices, but I believe that in the most ultimate sense at all times, without compromise, God is in control.

He is sovereign over all things. And by the way, if God’s not total in his sovereignty, if his sovereignty is not total and comprehensive, then we’re lost. There’s something outside of his sovereign will. And if so, the cosmos is going to unravel and we’re doomed. We are saved, we are secure, and for that matter, we even exist and operate, solely because God is unconditionally sovereign. It is also true that God in his sovereignty permits certain things to happen, and that includes the fall. It includes Adam rebelling against him, our fall in Adam. And the fact that we are sinners, that also is something that God permits. It is a part of his eternal plan. It is a part of his unfolding sovereignty.

And it is for the greater glory, that he will receive and the greater good that is accomplished by the salvation of sinners through the substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. So it’s not wrong when you see a sin, and this listener points to the sin of abortion, it’s not wrong to point to that and say you have a hard time understanding how that fits within God’s sovereign purpose. Well, it is a part of what God permits in terms even of human sinfulness and the unraveling of the universe by human sin. But it is also in the larger context of his eternal plan to bring glory to his name through the atonement accomplished by his son and eventually through the Lord Jesus Christ and his perfect rule over the entire cosmos.

But there’s not an atom or molecule outside the sovereignty of God. If such an atom or molecule existed, the entire universe, I believe, would unravel. The Bible makes clear that both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are very real things. And of course, this has to do with even how we come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is why I believe Reformed theology is comprehensively honest and accurate about that process. It is because of God working his will, his sovereign will working in us. But the Bible makes clear that divine sovereignty and human responsibility are both real, but human responsibility is a very small issue over against divine sovereignty. And at the end of the day, all that will be revealed in the glory of God is indeed the exercise of his sovereignty.

Part V

---

How Can the Trustees of Institutions Prevent Liberal Drift? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

Next, I have been at the Southern Baptist Convention meetings over the course of the last several days. Some things we can talk about related to that. But a question comes in from a listener referring to the fact that I had talked about developments at Fuller Theological Seminary that said that a part of the problem is that too many evangelicals have self-perpetuating boards of trustees. This listener writes in and says, “Why is it that this means a certain susceptibility to theological drift?” And the listener also says, “I attended a non-denominational Christian college as an undergraduate with a similar structure, and I’ve noticed the same pattern of theological drift at my alma mater.” He goes on to say, “Why is that so and how can it be prevented?”

Well, I think it’s so because, when you look at the way institutions work and the way the culture influences institutions, the draw and the attraction is always to the left. The push is to the left. And I think you see that it’s a push sometimes from faculty. It comes from students. It’s the push of the larger culture. It takes enormous power of resistance to say “no” when it comes to the pressure to move left. And I think one of the ways that’s checked is when, for example, like in the Southern Baptist Convention, you have messengers from the churches. You have the convention that elects the trustees of the institutions, that includes the six theological seminaries and other institutions.

So you have a check on that theological drift because it is faithful Christians coming from faithful Southern Baptist churches, who elect other faithful Christians to be trustees. I just think that’s a much better system. It’s not a perfect system, but as much as its imperfections were clear and some Southern Baptist institutions drifting to the left, and even worse, is also the reason why conservative Southern Baptists decades ago could gain control of their institutions by the election of conservative trustees who would exercise faithfulness and, frankly, demand faithfulness within the institutions.

In a fallen world, polity matters. Getting the polity right, the organization right, doesn’t guarantee success, but I do think faithfulness is tremendously enhanced by the fact that you trust faithful members of those churches to meet together to elect other faithful Christians to serve on these governing boards. This way, you don’t have the boards just perpetuating themselves and choosing people they like to be their successors or colleagues on a board. I think we see just institution by institution that that has proved to be a pretty dangerous situation.

Part VI

---

Is the Conflict Between Elon Musk and President Trump as Heated as the Media is Painting It Out to Be? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

Well, all right. Another really good question comes in from a 15-year-old young man, a listener to The Briefing. He asks about recent news reports about, well, media portrayal of the conflict between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. He then asks, “Is this conflict as severe as the media paints it or is it just an issue of high emotion?” He says, “I would like your opinion on this matter.” Well, let me just say to this young listener, I have no personal insight into this matter, but I want to deal with your question because I think it does point to something Christians should consider, and that is that the media loves heat. It loves a fight. It thrives on conflict.

Now, let’s be honest, there appears to be a genuine conflict between President Trump and Elon Musk, but let’s all admit we don’t have any first-hand access to that relationship. What we have are media reports, and by the way, just trying to put all that together, something very real is going on there. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that, but the sensationalism that the media produces on this, and quite frankly, even the characters themselves can demonstrate in this, that sensationalism doesn’t necessarily tell you the essence of what is at stake. And in this case, it’s a very sad thing, just in its own terms, but it’s exactly the kind of soap opera that the media culture absolutely loves, and it gets people talking about it.

It makes people watch their programs. People want to see that kind of dynamic. They are drawn to this kind of a fight, even as people in other cultures are drawn to a bullfight. So I appreciate this young listener sending in this question. You are absolutely right to be suspicious, certainly, in terms of sensationalism. There’s clearly something going on there, but honestly, someone’s got to be a lot closer to Donald Trump or Elon Musk to know the truth in this situation. The other factor is that sometimes it takes some time for the truth to be revealed, but in the meantime, we’ve sure got lots of headlines.

By the way, one further thought in terms of Donald Trump and Elon Musk, they’re the kinds of personalities who draw media attention. I think they both know it. They both, to some extent, thrive on it. They’ve reached an interesting moment, and we’ll see what we learn about this situation in days ahead. In the meantime, you got to know that the leftist media is absolutely loving this.

Part VII

---

Why is It Taking So Long to Find a New Archbishop of Canterbury? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

Another listener, very interestingly writes in asking if the Roman Catholic Church can, in a matter of days, elect a new Pope, certainly within a period of three weeks. How can the Anglican Church, that is, the Church of England, which has been without an Archbishop of Canterbury for several months, why is it taking so long to decide on a new one?

Well, I guess the better part of valor would be to say that it would take an Anglican to answer that question. But I think it also comes down to the fact that as you look at the stresses within Anglicanism, well, it’s a pretty complicated situation they find themselves in, and one that’s politically charged everywhere you look. But it’s also true that you don’t have a College of Cardinals in the Anglican Communion or in the Church of England to select a new Archbishop of Canterbury. Rather, it involves the Prime Minister, it involves the Monarch, it involves many others, which means it’s politics. I’m sure there are Anglicans who could give you a more developed answer. In the meantime, I’ll just tell you that watching all of this makes me really glad I’m a Baptist. We don’t have a Pope, we don’t have an Archbishop, so we don’t have the problem.