There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
The more mercies we have received from God, the greater has been our sin.
You have reared and brought me up as a child, but I have rebelled against you. Isaiah 1:2(ESV)
I have ill repaid you, O LORD, as a foolish and senseless person: You are my Father who created me, who made me and established me, yet my mark has not been the mark of one of your children. Deuteronomy 32:5-6(KJV)
The fairer warning we have had from the word of God and from our own consciences concerning our danger of sin and danger by sin, the greater is the sin if we go on in it.
I have been often reproved, and yet have stiffened my neck, Proverbs 29:1(ESV) and have gone on backsliding in the way of my own heart. Isaiah 57:17(ESV)
You have sent to me, saying, “Oh, do not do this abomination that I hate!” But I have not listened or inclined my ear. Jeremiah 44:4-5(ESV)
The word of God has been to me precept upon precept and line upon line; Isaiah 28:13(ESV) and though I have looked intently at my natural face in a mirror, yet I have gone away and at once forgotten what I was like. James 1:23-24(ESV)
Nehemiah 7:73-8:18 In this week’s studies, we see that Nehemiah not only wanted to rebuild the wall, but also the nation.
Theme
The Leader and the Nation
Nehemiah had come to Jerusalem to rebuild the wall, and he had been successful in doing it. But we discover now that the rebuilding was far from all he had in mind. Nehemiah wanted to rebuild the wall, but beyond that objective he had the far more significant objective of rebuilding the nation.
Up to this point Nehemiah has been writing in the first person, saying “I did this” and “I did that.” With the start of chapter 8 this changes. Here the narrative shifts to the third person.
This seems to mean that Nehemiah was aware that the second stage of the work, though envisioned by him, was not his concern alone but was a matter to be pursued by Ezra, the spiritual head of the people, more than by himself.
In the second half of the book we are going to find the following key elements: 1) a revival of the people through a reading of the law, confession of sin and a renewal of the covenant (chaps. 8-10); 2) the repopulation of Jerusalem (11:1-12:26); and 3) the final, joyous dedication of the walls (12:27-47). As a postscript, chapter 13 will detail Nehemiah’s final reforms.
It is important to note something else as we begin this new section. In our study of this book we have been dealing with a number of leadership dynamics apparent in Nehemiah, and at this point we begin to find another. We have already seen five: 1) the leader and God, 2) the leader and his superior or superiors, 3) the leader and his subordinates, 4) the leader and the task, and 5) the leader and opposition. At this point we see a sixth dynamic, which is the leader and the nation. This is important, because it is a way of saying that, however isolated our particular task or challenge may be, it is nevertheless always part of a greater whole, since we are citizens of a nation and what we do affects the larger body.
Study Questions
What elements are present in the second half of the book of Nehemiah?
Review the previous five leadership dynamics we have seen. What is the six dynamic, and why is it important?
Application
Application: Have you considered that how you live affects not only yourself and your own relationship to God, but also others around you? What might you need to do differently in light of this?
For Further Study: Download for free and listen to James Boice’s message, “The Greatest Revival in History.” (Discount will be applied at checkout.)
By now, anyone who has had discussions about scientific evidence for the existence of God knows about the fine-tuning argument. In a nutshell, if the fundamental constants and quantities given in the Big Bang were even slightly other than they are, then the universe itself would not be hospitable for complex, embodied intelligent life.
Here is an article from The New Atlantis written by Australian cosmologist Luke Barnes.
Excerpt:
Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature.
[…]A universe that has just small tweaks in the fundamental constants might not have any of the chemical bonds that give us molecules, so say farewell to DNA, and also to rocks, water, and planets. Other tweaks could make the formation of stars or even atoms impossible. And with some values for the physical constants, the universe would have flickered out of existence in a fraction of a second. That the constants are all arranged in what is, mathematically speaking, the very improbable combination that makes our grand, complex, life-bearing universe possible is what physicists mean when they talk about the “fine-tuning” of the universe for life.
Let’s look at an example – the strong force. Not only must the strong force be fine-tuned so we have both hydrogen and helium, but the ratio of the strong force must also be fine-tuned with the fine structure constant.
Barnes writes:
The strong nuclear force, for example, is the glue that holds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei of atoms. If, in a hypothetical universe, it is too weak, then nuclei are not stable and the periodic table disappears again. If it is too strong, then the intense heat of the early universe could convert all hydrogen into helium — meaning that there could be no water, and that 99.97 percent of the 24 million carbon compounds we have discovered would be impossible, too. And, as the chart to the right shows, the forces, like the masses, must be in the right balance. If the electromagnetic force, which is responsible for the attraction and repulsion of charged particles, is too strong or too weak compared to the strong nuclear force, anything from stars to chemical compounds would be impossible.
Here’s the chart he’s referencing:
Fine-tuning of the strong nuclear force and the fine structure constant
As you can see from the chart, most of the values that the constants could take would make complex, embodied intelligent life impossible.
We need carbon (carbon-based life) because they form the basis of the components of life chemistry, e.g. proteins, sugars, etc. We need hydrogen for water. We need chemical reactions for obvious reasons. We need the light from the stars to support plant and animal life on the surface of a planet. And so on. In almost every case where you change the values of these constants and quantities and ratios from what they are, you will end up with a universe that does not support life. Not just life as we know it, but life of any conceivable kind under these laws of physics. And we don’t have any alternative laws of physics in this universe.
By the way, just to show you how mainstream these examples of fine-tuning are, I thought I would link to a source that you’re all going to be familiar with: The New Scientist.
The fine-tuning of the force of gravity
So here is an article from the New Scientist about a different constant that also has to be fine-tuned for life: the force of gravity.
Excerpt:
The feebleness of gravity is something we should be grateful for. If it were a tiny bit stronger, none of us would be here to scoff at its puny nature.
The moment of the universe‘s birth created both matter and an expanding space-time in which this matter could exist. While gravity pulled the matter together, the expansion of space drew particles of matter apart – and the further apart they drifted, the weaker their mutual attraction became.
It turns out that the struggle between these two was balanced on a knife-edge. If the expansion of space had overwhelmed the pull of gravity in the newborn universe, stars, galaxies and humans would never have been able to form. If, on the other hand, gravity had been much stronger, stars and galaxies might have formed, but they would have quickly collapsed in on themselves and each other. What’s more, the gravitational distortion of space-time would have folded up the universe in a big crunch. Our cosmic history could have been over by now.
Only the middle ground, where the expansion and the gravitational strength balance to within 1 part in 1015 at 1 second after the big bang, allows life to form.
Notice how the article also mentioned “the universe’s birth”, which is part of mainstream science.
When I’m writing to you about things like the origin of the universe, or the cosmic fine-tuning, I’m not talking to you about things that pastors found in the Bible. These discoveries are known and accepted by mainstream scientists. It’s amazing that people are constructing their worldviews without having to account for the birth of the universe and this cosmic fine-tuning. We all, as rational individuals, have to bound our view of the universe with the findings of science. Right now, those findings support the existence of a Creator and a Designer. So why am I seeing so many atheists who are just plain ignorant about these facts? Maybe we should tell them about this evidence. Maybe we should ask them why they don’t account for scientific evidence when forming their beliefs.
Genesis 3:15’s Enmity and the Assassination of Charlie Kirk – Pastor Patrick Hines Reformed Podcast
[Gen 3:15 NASB20] 15 And I will make enemies Of you and the woman, And of your offspring and her Descendant; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise Him on the heel.”
Pastor Patrick Hines has recently had a brand new book published, called, “Earth’s Foundational History – Part 1: Genesis Chapters 1 Through 5.” (Paperback – May 4, 2023) https://cutt.ly/16RCeZ0
These two books are also available on Amazon. All proceeds go directly to Pastor Hines:
Am I Right With God?: The Gospel, Justification, Saving Faith, Repentance, Assurance, & The New Birth https://cutt.ly/S6RCbuM
Redrawing the Battle Lines: 23 Sermons on Critical Issues Facing the Church https://cutt.ly/m6RCTi0
20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,
Who substitutes bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Legacy Standard Bible (Is 5:20). (2022). Three Sixteen Publishing.
5:20 The fourth woe is against those who confused ethical categories. They classified actions as evil that God would call good and vice versa. While the principle is broader than judicial, such moral confusion was particularly reprehensible in the courtroom (v. 23).
Longman, T., III. (2017). Isaiah. In E. A. Blum & T. Wax (Eds.), CSB Study Bible: Notes (p. 1048). Holman Bible Publishers.
5:20, 21 These verses paint a perfect picture of the “modern morality” with its glossing over of evil, and its re-dressing of wickedness to give it the appearance of righteousness. This insensitivity to moral decay is the sign of deepest corruption. “Light” and “darkness” are symbols for “good” and “evil” (cf. 1 Sam. 2:9; 2 Sam. 22:29; Job 29:3; Ps. 112:4; Prov. 2:13; Acts 26:18; Rom. 13:12). “Bitter” is sometimes used of wickedness (Jer. 2:19; 4:18) and “sweet” of good (Ps. 103; 109). According to the “modern morality,” which is based on the principle of self-gratification, cheating is a way to prosperity, adultery only a casual pleasure, lying merely a means to an end, and homosexuality simply the result of a difference in body chemistry. There can appear no “modern morality,” however, until God’s law, as it is found in the Scriptures, is pushed aside and discarded.
Criswell, W. A., Patterson, P., Clendenen, E. R., Akin, D. L., Chamberlin, M., Patterson, D. K., & Pogue, J., eds. (1991). Believer’s Study Bible (electronic ed., Is 5:20). Thomas Nelson.
5:20 evil good and good evil As v. 21 makes clear, relying on our own wisdom leads to a distorted view of the world and a skewed perspective on right and wrong.
Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., Whitehead, M. M., Grigoni, M. R., & Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (Is 5:20). Lexham Press.
5:20 those who call evil good and good evil. Evildoers can be so blinded in their moral judgment that their evaluations of good and evil are the exact opposite of God’s true perspective (cf. Matt. 12:24; John 8:44; 2 Thess. 2:11).
Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (pp. 1249–1250). Crossway Bibles.
5:20 evil good, and good evil. The fourth woe condemned the reversal of morality which dominated the nation. They utterly confused all moral distinctions.
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). The MacArthur study Bible: New American Standard Bible. (Is 5:20). Thomas Nelson Publishers.
5:20 — Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! When God in His Word calls something evil, it is evil. When He labels a thing bitter, no multitude of religious authorities can make it sweet through their solemn declarations. God is our absolute authority.
Stanley, C. F. (2005). The Charles F. Stanley life principles Bible: New King James Version (Is 5:20). Nelson Bibles.
5:20. Some people lead others astray by their perverted values. Evil-for example, adultery, idolatry, materialism, murder, and many other sins forbidden in the Scriptures-is often held up as being good. Those who say such things are under the threat (woe) of God’s judgment.
Martin, J. A. (1985). Isaiah. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 1043). Victor Books.
The moral code has been rewritten. People no longer feel guilty when they depart from what was once considered right. Just as ‘one man’s meat is another man’s poison’, so personal taste now rules supreme; if a course of behaviour seems bitter or sweet to someone, then that’s what it is.
Motyer, J. A. (1999). Isaiah: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 20, p. 74). InterVarsity Press.
20 This “woe” has a link with the previous one (v. 18), for there “deceit” is expounded as skepticism about the ways of God. Unhappily it is an easy journey from such skepticism to the total reversal of values that this verse demonstrates, for God is the source of all values. If we are wrong about him, we can soon be wrong about everything. The Pharisees’ rejection of Christ showed itself in the same way, for they attributed the works of the Holy Spirit to Beelzebub (Mk 3:22–30).
Grogan, G. W. (2008). Isaiah. In T. Longman III, Garland David E. (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Proverbs–Isaiah (Revised Edition) (Vol. 6, p. 502). Zondervan.
For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.Isaiah 54:10
One of the most delightful qualities of divine love is its abiding character. The pillars of the earth may be moved out of their places, but the kindness and the covenant of our merciful Jehovah never depart from His people. How happy my soul feels in a firm belief of this inspired declaration! The year is almost over, and the years of my life are growing few, but time does not change my Lord. New lamps are taking the place of the old; perpetual change is on all things, but our Lord is the same. Force overturns the hills, but no conceivable power can affect the eternal God. Nothing in the past, the present, or the future can cause Jehovah to be unkind to me.
My soul, rest in the eternal kindness of the Lord, who treats thee as one near of kin. Remember also the everlasting covenant. God is ever mindful of it—see that thou art mindful of it too. In Christ Jesus the glorious God has pledged Himself to thee to be thy God and to hold thee as one of His people. Kindness and covenant-dwell on these words as sure and lasting things which eternity itself shall not take from thee.
He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.Hebrews 13:5
Several times in the Scriptures the Lord hath said this. He has often repeated it to make our assurance doubly sure. Let us never harbor a doubt about it. In itself the promise is specially emphatic. In the Greek it has five negatives, each one definitely shutting out the possibility of the Lord’s ever leaving one of His people so that he can justly feel forsaken of his God. This priceless Scripture does not promise us exemption from trouble, but it does secure us against desertion. We may be called to traverse strange ways, but we shall always have our Lord’s company, assistance, and provision. We need not covet money, for we shall always have our God, and God is better than gold; His favor is better than fortune.
We ought surely to be content with such things as we have, for he who has God has more than all the world besides. What can we have beyond the Infinite? What more can we desire than almighty Goodness.
Come, my heart; if God says He will never leave thee nor forsake thee, be thou much in prayer for grace that thou mayest never leave thy Lord, nor even for a moment forsake His ways.
One of the benefits of getting older is that you become even less impressed with recycled bad arguments.
Fifteen years ago when people were still talking about the Emergent Church, I participated in a panel discussion about the pros and cons of the movement. After a riveting panel in front of 50 people, in a cavernous hall that had room for more than 500, a visibly upset man accosted me, frustrated with how I used Scripture to critique the Emergent Church.
He didn’t try to argue with any particular comment I made, including my references to the Bible. Instead, he argued with me that everything I said was only my interpretation of the Bible. I tried to show him that Jesus taught as if there was a discernible meaning in Scripture that could be known, agreed upon, and meaningfully communicated. He replied that this was only my interpretation. I tried to belabor the point that the men in the Bible didn’t speak or write as if they only had an interpretation of the Bible. He said this line of reasoning was also just my interpretation.
Needless to say, we both walked away from our exchange more frustrated than enlightened.
The debate about interpretation is an old one. During the Reformation, Protestants and Catholics weren’t (then) divided over the total trustworthiness of Scripture. They were divided over the clarity and authority of Scripture. The doctrine of perspicuity—which, for a word meaning “clarity” isn’t all that clear—is sometimes maligned as a magical assertion that everything in the Bible is easy to understand. But the doctrine is more sophisticated than that.
The Westminster Confession of Faith gives a classic definition when it admits that “[a]ll things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all,” yet the things that are necessary for salvation “are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture” that even the unlearned—“in a due use of the ordinary means”—can gain a sufficient understanding of them (WCF 1.7).
In our day, that debate is not a technical theological controversy about popes, councils, and the magisterium. But the question is just as important because an implicit denial of the clarity of Scripture goes hand in hand with the diminishment of the study of Scripture.
When someone says “That’s just your interpretation,” or when critics slander conservative Christians as believing not just in the infallibility of the Bible but in the infallibility of their interpretation of the Bible, the next step is almost never to strive for a supposedly better interpretation. The critics don’t mean to dive deeper into the text so as to determine what the Bible teaches. The charge of “just your interpretation” has the opposite effect; it short-circuits the interpretative process altogether.
This is a rhetorical strategy that marginalizes traditional and orthodox doctrine, not by proving that the doctrine is wrong but by making the rather mundane observation (masquerading as profundity) that some people don’t agree with the doctrine. Why go to the hard exegetical, historical, and theological work of debating women’s ordination or gay (so-called) marriage if you can sidestep the debate by labeling the church’s long-held position as “just your interpretation”?
Besides being intellectually lazy, the charge of “just your interpretation” is also self-defeating, because, of course, the critics believe they have arrived at a very good interpretation of how to understand conservative Christians. More than that, at some point, everyone thinks the Bible is clear about some things. I’ve read theologians argue strenuously against the clarity of Scripture, only for those same theologians to later assert that obviously the Bible is clear about the message of the kingdom, or about God’s preference for the poor, or about God’s heart of love for the outcast. Perspicuity for me, not for thee?
The reality is that “interpretations” are what we have in every area of intellectual inquiry. The problem of pervasive interpretation pluralism is not an evangelical problem. It is a human problem. Do we really think historians, economists, sociologists, and scientists don’t disagree on how to interpret matters in their field? And do we think they aren’t confident that their conclusions are much more sure than mere “interpretations”? If we are going to give up on reading texts and reaching firm conclusions, we won’t just marginalize the Bible; we will render the entire exercise of human reason fruitless and irrelevant.
The Bible has always been subject to different interpretations. Peter acknowledged that some things Paul wrote were “hard to understand” and that “the ignorant and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). The task of preachers, theologians, and ordinary Christians “in due use of the ordinary means” has been to determine the true meaning of the text.
As Augustine put it, “What difficulty is it for me when these words can be interpreted in various ways, provided only that the interpretations are true?” The prophets and the apostles, the early Fathers and the Reformers all assumed that the Bible could be correctly understood and applied. We dare to affirm the same.
One of the great challenges for biblical inerrantists in our day is not only to show that what we believe is right, but to defend the very right to be right.
But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (2:17–21)
By their behavior, Peter and the other Jewish Christians at Antioch had given approval to the Judaizers’ idea that it was necessary for a Gentile to keep the Jewish rituals before he could become a Christian. Paul’s defense of justification by faith in verses 17–21 continues his contradiction of this Judaistic legalism to which Peter and the others had succumbed. It is crucial to understand that, as in the previous two verses, we refers to Jewish Christians. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves, as Jewish Christians, have also been found sinners, Paul asks rhetorically, is Christ then a minister of sin? His first point was to show that, if the Judaizers were correct in their doctrine that believers are saved in part by keeping the ceremonial law of Moses and continue to be bound by that law to maintain their salvation, then, even before the Judaizers arrived in Antioch, Peter, Barnabas, and all the other Jewish believers, including Paul, had fallen back into the category of sinners by having freely eaten and fellowshiped with Gentile Christians. Paul’s second point was even more devastating. “If you became sinners because of fellowshiping with your Gentile brothers,” he implies, “then Christ Himself became a minister of sin, did he not?” How? Jesus had clearly taught that no food can spiritually contaminate a person, because food cannot affect the heart (Mark 7:19). Through the vision of the unclean animals and the dramatic conversion and anointing of Cornelius, the Lord had given Peter direct evidence that Gentile believers are in every way equal to Jewish believers (Acts 10). On many other occasions and in many other ways Jesus had taught that all those who belong to Him are one with Him and therefore one with each other. Shortly before His arrest, trial, and crucifixion, Jesus earnestly and repeatedly prayed to His Father that those who believed in Him “may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us … that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity” (John 17:21–23). But if the Judaizers were right, Paul pointed out, Jesus was wrong; if they taught the truth, He had taught falsehood and was thereby a minister of sin! Such an accusation must have shaken Peter to his bones. To be called a hypocrite stung enough, but to be called a sinner was unthinkable, and to be accused of making Jesus a minister of sin was shocking and repulsive. Yet the logic of Paul’s argument was inescapable. By his actions, Peter had in effect condemned Jesus Christ. He therefore had to forsake his Judaistic sympathies or continue to make His Lord a liar. To his own question Paul immediately responded, May it never be! It must have been painful to Paul to suggest even hypothetically that Christ could participate in, much less promote, sin. But the drastic danger of Judaistic legalism demanded such drastic logic. He knew of no other way to bring Peter and the others to their senses. By using the term we in the previous verses, Paul had graciously identified himself with the compromisers to a certain extent. Now he even more graciously and lovingly softens the blow to his friends by using himself as a hypothetical example. For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, he said, I prove myself to be a transgressor. In other words, if anyone, including myself, tries to rebuild a system of legalism after he has once destroyed it by believing and preaching the gospel of God’s powerful grace and man’s sinful helplessness, he proves himself, not Christ, to be a transgressor. He proves himself to be a hypocrite and a sinner by abandoning grace for law. “I could never do such a thing,” Paul asserts, “for through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God. The idea of legalism clashes with God’s clearest truth and my own deepest convictions. Now that I have accepted grace and died to the Law, I could never go back to its system of rituals and ordinances. Otherwise I could not live to God.” The law is not the believer’s master; God is. It is not his relation to the law that saves him, but his relation to God. “Do you not know, brethren,” Paul asked the believers at Rome, “that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.… Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead that we might bear fruit for God” (Rom. 7:1–2, 4).
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. (Rom. 6:1–14)
In both Romans and Galatians, Paul is referring to the fact that when a person exercises faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, he is placed in transcendent spiritual union with Christ in the historical event of His death and resurrection, in which the penalty of sin was paid in full. If a man is convicted of a capital crime and is put to death, the law obviously has no more claim on him. He has paid his debt to society. Therefore, even if he were to rise from the dead, he would still be guiltless before the law, which would have no claim on his new life. So it is with the believer who dies in Christ to rise in new life. He is free forever from any claim of the law on him. He paid the law’s demand when he died in Christ. His physical death is no punishment, only a release to glory provided in his union with Christ. Legalism’s most destructive effect is that it cancels the effect of the cross. I have been crucified with Christ, Paul testifies, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. To go back under the law would be to cancel one’s union with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and therefore to go back under sin. I died to the Law, Paul explains, because I was crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live. The old man, the old self, is dead, crucified with Christ, and the new man lives (cf. Col. 3:9–10). Now I … live to God, because Christ lives in me (cf. Rom. 8:9). The life I received by faith I now also live by faith. The Greek verb behind live is in the perfect tense, indicating a past completed action that has continuing results. When a believer trusts in Christ for salvation he spiritually participates with the Lord in His crucifixion and in His victory over sin and death. That is why, the apostle continues, the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God. The true Christian life is not so much a believer’s living for Christ as Christ’s living through the believer. Because in Christ “all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col. 2:9), the fulness of God also dwells in every believer, as “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). I do not have such a divine life and the magnanimous privilege of being indwelt with the living, powerful Son of God because of anything I have done or merited, but only because He loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. The surpassing motive, therefore, for all spiritual devotion and obedience is gratitude to the sovereign, gracious Lord. The statement who loved me refers to the motive behind God’s saving grace. The New Testament is replete with teaching on this great truth (see, e.g., John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 2:5). The gift of love was not taken from Christ, but He delivered Himself up for me, says the apostle. This is reminiscent of our Lord’s words in John 10:17–18, “I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down of My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.” All of this saving work is the gift of God’s sovereign grace. Consequently, Paul concludes, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. In effect he was saying to Peter, “By withdrawing from fellowship with your Gentile brothers you take your stand with the Judaizers and against Christ. You nullify the grace of God by denying the need for Christ’s death, just as you did when you rebuked the Lord for declaring it was necessary for Him to suffer, be killed, and raised on the third day (see Matt. 16:21–22). The two pillars of the gospel are the grace of God and the death of Christ, and those are the two pillars that, by its very nature, legalism destroys. The person who insists that he can earn salvation by his own efforts undermines the very foundation of Christianity and nullifies the precious death of Christ on his behalf.
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1983). Galatians (pp. 57–60). Moody Press.
20 This same point Paul now repeats in greater detail, with the name of Christ prominent. He has died to law so that he might live for God, but this is true only because he has been joined to the Lord Jesus Christ by God the Father. Jesus died; so did Paul. Jesus rose again; so did Paul. The resurrection life he is now living he is living through the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ within him. There are different ways in which Paul’s references to having died and come to life in Christ may be taken; he himself uses the images in different ways. He may be referring to the participation of Christians in the benefits of Christ’s experiences, as Burton notes (in loc.). This would mean that Christians experience death and new life because Jesus experienced death and new life for them. He may be referring to Christian experiences analogous to those that Christ endured. Philippians 3:10 and Romans 8:17 would be examples of this usage. Finally, he may be referring to an actual participation of the believer in Christ’s death and resurrection conceived on the basis of the mystical union of the believer with the Lord (cf. Rom 6:4–8; Col 2:12–14, 20; 3:1–4). This last view is the hardest to understand, but it is the one involved here. What does it mean to be “in Christ”? It means to be so united to Christ that all the experiences of Christ become the Christian’s experiences. Thus, his death for sin was the believer’s death; his resurrection was (in one sense) the believer’s resurrection; his ascension was the believer’s ascension, so that the believer is (again in one sense) seated with Christ “in the heavenly realms” (so Eph 2:6). This thought is particularly evident in Paul’s use of the perfect tense in speaking of his having been crucified with Christ. The perfect refers to something that has happened in the past but whose influence continues into the present. Therefore, Paul cannot be speaking of a present experience of Christ’s crucifixion, in whatever sense it may be conceived, but rather to Christ’s death itself. He died with Christ; that is, his “old man” died with Christ. This was arranged by God so that Christ, rather than the old Paul, might live in him. In one sense, Paul is still living. But he adds that the life he lives now is lived “by faith.” It is a different life from the life in which he was striving to be justified by law. In another sense, it is not Paul who is living at all, but rather Christ who lives in him.
Boice, J. M. (1976). Galatians. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians (Vol. 10, pp. 451–452). Zondervan Publishing House.
UN Security Council to Convene Over Russian Fighter Jet Incursion Into Estonia The United Nations Security Council will hold an emergency session Monday after Estonia accused Russia of a “brazen provocation” for sending three fighter jets into its airspace, escalating concerns of a widening confrontation between Moscow and NATO.
OpenAI Tries to Train AI Not to Deceive Users, Realizes It’s Instead Teaching It How to Deceive Them While Covering Its Tracks OpenAI researchers tried to train the company’s AI to stop “scheming” — a term the company defines as meaning “when an AI behaves one way on the surface while hiding its true goals” — but their efforts backfired in an ominous way. In reality, the team found, they were unintentionally teaching the AI how to more effectively deceive humans by covering its tracks. “A major failure mode of attempting to ‘train out’ scheming is simply teaching the model to scheme more carefully and covertly,”
Dozens of Jews and Christians offer prayers, sing on Temple Mount in honor of Charlie Kirk A group of Jewish and Christian worshipers ascended the Temple Mount on Wednesday afternoon, in an event organized by Beyadenu (“In Our Hands”) and former Knesset Member Yehuda Glick, to pray and sing in memory of Evangelical Christian and conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The prayers were led by Glick and social activist Mordechai Askin. Glick is known as an activist and proponent for Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, and survived an assassination attempt in 2014.
Netanyahu: There will be no Palestinian state Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated on Sunday that there will not be a Palestinian state and said that an Israeli response to the international recognition by various Western countries will come upon his return from a visit to the United States. “I have a clear message to those leaders who have recognized a Palestinian state after the terrible massacre of October 7: You are granting a huge prize to terrorism,” Netanyahu said.
Hamas terrorists fire on UN teams, block Gaza aid route Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) reported Saturday that Hamas terrorists opened fire on United Nations personnel preparing a new humanitarian aid corridor in southern Gaza.
Taliban rejects Trump demand to return Bagram Air Base Taliban rejects Trump’s demand to return Bagram Air Base, citing Afghanistan’s sovereignty under the Doha Agreement. Trump warns “bad things” could follow if the US doesn’t regain control.
Unclear Iran footage suggests new missile testing near Tehran Iran tests a new intercontinental ballistic missile and sends its foreign minister to the UN, signaling defiance amid regional tensions. An Iranian parliament member cited last week’s launch as a successful test of an advanced intercontinental ballistic missile, saying, “We tested one of the country’s most sophisticated missiles, never tried before—and it succeeded.”
Huge Victory: Churches—Not Government—Decide Who Their Leaders Are, Federal Appeals Court Rules We recently secured a huge victory in federal appeals court for the North American Mission Board (NAMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that courts cannot “interfere with matters of church government, matters of faith, (and) matters of doctrine.” The 5th Circuit dismissed the lawsuit brought against NAMB by a former employee. “There should be no doubt that religious organizations and associations—not judges—have the freedom to choose how to fulfill their religious missions and with whom,”
Tropical Storm Nando (Ragasa) forecast to rapidly intensify east of Luzon, possible super typhoon Typhoon Ragasa, known locally as Nando, intensified into a super typhoon 00:00 UTC (08:00 LT) on September 21, 2025, east of Cagayan, Philippines. By 09:00 UTC, its center was located 450 km (280 miles) east of Aparri with sustained winds of 185 km/h (115 mph) and gusts up to 230 km/h (145 mph). The system is moving west-northwest toward Batanes and the Babuyan Islands, bringing life-threatening storm surges exceeding 3 m (10 feet), destructive winds, and very rough seas.
Christian Genocide in Nigeria: 3 Million Believers Under Siege as Calls for US Intervention Mount Life is fragile and dangerous for Christians living in the northern and Middle Belt regions of Nigeria. They face violence that often leads to death, the destruction of their homes, villages, and places of worship. Ultimately, they are forced to flee from the danger, which creates mass displacement for tens of thousands.
Silent retreats are surging in popularity. Religion is optional Americans seeking relief from hectic daily lives are increasingly exploring a tactic monks and nuns and others have practiced for millennia: being quiet and listening. Leaders from a variety of religious traditions — including Buddhism, Catholicism, Jainism and Judaism — said they are seeing a surge in demand for their silent retreats, in many cases from people who don’t identify with a particular religion.
Can You Guess The Number One Challenge That Americans Believe They Are Facing In 2025? We sure have seen a lot of really crazy things happen so far this year. But in the minds of most Americans, there is one crisis that far outweighs everything else. As I have been documenting for years, our standard of living has been collapsing as the cost of living has risen much faster than our incomes have. As a result, 67 percent of U.S. workers are now living paycheck to paycheck. We are in the midst of the worst cost-of-living crisis in modern history, and Statista has found that Americans consider it to be the biggest challenge that they are facing by a very large margin…
Poll: 9 in 10 Britons oppose unconditional Palestinian state recognition A new poll reveals a stark disconnect between PM Keir Starmer and the British public, with nearly 90% opposing his unconditional recognition of a Palestinian state. “A new poll, published by The Telegraph, has revealed a massive disconnect between British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the public, with nearly nine out of 10 Britons opposing his expected decision to recognize a Palestinian state without any conditions.”
UK Govt Signs Billion Dollar AI Military Deal with Palantir During President Trump’s recent visit to the UK, Britain signed a $1 billion, five-year defence software deal with dominant AI player Palantir. This “strategic partnership”, in which the AI platform will manage all the country’s armed forces, also promises that the company will base its European defence HQ in London. The stated aim is speed, interoperability, and an end to the patchwork of legacy systems across the Army, Navy, and Royal Air Force.
5,000 Americans Killed by Covid ‘Vaccines’ Every Week, Insurance Data Shows One of the world’s leading data analysts has sounded the alarm, revealing that the insurance industry is now tracking up to 5,000 deaths every single week linked to the Covid mRNA “vaccines.” The revelation comes from Edward Dowd, a former Wall Street executive and respected data expert, who disclosed the findings in a recent interview with the Commodity Culture podcast.
“Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.” —James Madison (1785)
Another trans offender: Add another person to the growing list of violent gender-bender offenders, as the would-be assassin of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has declared that he is “transgender.” In June 2022, after the Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade had leaked, Nicholas John Roske was caught outside the residence of Justice Kavanaugh with a firearm, tactical gear, zip ties, and other burglary tools. Roske admitted that he was planning to kill Kavanaugh. Roske, who suffers from mental illness, as well as suicide ideation, communicated on social media that he wanted to “do something positive before I die” and asked if killing Kavanaugh would “help women long term.” Roske, who pleaded guilty in April, now wishes to identify as a woman. According to his lawyers, he’s going by the name “Sophie” and requests that the court refer to him with female pronouns “out of respect.”
58 Democrats vote against honoring Charlie Kirk: House Republicans presented a fairly basic resolution on Friday, honoring Charlie Kirk’s life and condemning his assassination. Astoundingly, 58 Democrats voted no, 38 voted present, and 22 avoided the vote altogether (only three legislators were absent immediately prior to the resolution). “Squad” members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib unanimously voted against the resolution. AOC took to the floor of Congress to deride Kirk as ignorant and racist. Jasmine Crockett headed to CNN to complain that all but two of the no votes were “people of color.” Resolutions condemning political assassinations are usually nonpartisan and barely newsworthy. The House unanimously passed a similar resolution condemning the assassination of Minnesota politician Melissa Hortman by a crazy man who believed he was working for Tim Walz. Far from toning down the rhetoric, Democrats refuse to condemn political assassinations.
Second would-be Trump assassin on trial: Ryan Routh is currently on trial in Florida for his attempted assassination of Donald Trump on a golf course in September 2024, just over two months after Thomas Crooks struck Trump in the ear with a bullet that was millimeters away from killing him in Butler, Pennsylvania. Routh is acting as his own defense and has pleaded not guilty. The evidence against him includes his own handwritten note addressed to “Dear World,” in which he wrote, “This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, but I failed you. I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster. It is up to you now to finish the job; and I will offer $150,000 to whomever can complete the job.” If it hadn’t been for a Secret Service agent noticing Routh’s rifle barrel sticking through the fence, Trump might have been killed.
Senate rejects bills to avoid shutdown: Senate Democrats blocked a House bill on Friday that would have funded the government for seven more weeks. In a 44-48 vote, all Senate Democrats except for Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman voted against the House bill. Two Republicans, Senators Rand Paul (KY) and Lisa Murkowski (AK), also voted against the bill. Republicans then voted down a Democrat proposed funding bill that would have included $1 trillion in Medicaid spending, an increase that occurred during COVID, which Republicans are seeking to return to pre-pandemic levels. Senate Majority Leader John Thune faulted the Democrats for refusing to support the House’s stopgap bill and seeking to shove in language to expand ObamaCare subsidies. Senate Republican leaders have made it clear who is to blame, stating, “If Senate Democrats insist on a Schumer Shutdown of the federal government, Members should be prepared to return to DC.”
Trump announces $100K upfront fee for importing H-1B workers: H-1B visas, which became a talking point late last December, are a way for major technology companies to import skilled workers from foreign countries. These workers, while skilled, usually do not draw high wages, incentivizing American companies to import H-1B workers instead of hiring domestically. Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, and Google together employ over 33,000 H-1B workers. In response to domestic concerns, Donald Trump announced that a $100,000 fee will be imposed on new H-1B workers, starting with the next round of visa lottery winners. Current H-1B holders were advised to remain in the country by their employers over the weekend, despite White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s assurance that the workers can continue traveling normally.
UK, Australia, and Canadian PMs recognize “Palestine”: The leftist prime ministers in Australia, Canada, and the UK recognized Palestinian statehood on Sunday, despite Hamas still holding dozens of hostages from the October 7 terrorist attack. UK PM Kier Starmer said, “We are acting to keep alive the possibility of peace.” The three nations still call for the destruction of Hamas and the end of their political power, but the alternative Palestinian government, the Palestinian Authority, has little to no power and no army of any kind. France and other nations are expected to join the recognition of “Palestine” today. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu answered the announcement bluntly: “It will not happen.” Netanyahu is expected to speak before the UN on Friday and meet with President Donald Trump next Monday.
Pro-“Palestine” terrorist attack: On Saturday evening, at the Sky Meadow Country Club in Nashua, New Hampshire, a man entered the busy establishment and began shooting, killing a 59-year-old man and injuring at least two others. The attacker was a 23-year-old who yelled “The children are safe!” and “Free Palestine!” just before he opened fire. The crowd at the establishment was there to celebrate a wedding, and the perpetrator was arrested immediately following the attack. The man killed had no known connection to the attacker, with New Hampshire Senior Assistant Attorney General Peter Hinckley stating that they are “still working to determine a motive.” That explanation appears dubious given the report that the assailant yelled “Free Palestine.” This looks like yet another instance of leftist political violence.
USDA ends “politicized” food security reports: The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the end of “Household Food Security Reports” on Saturday. Food insecurity in the U.S., defined as “limited or uncertain access to adequate food,” has remained stable, fluctuating between 11%-15% over the last 20 years, while “very low food security” has remained consistently low, ranging from 4%-5% during the same period. Despite the unchanging numbers on food security, SNAP spending rose during the 2019-2023 period by over 87%. The USDA press release called the now-ended reports “redundant, costly,” and fearmongering. The USDA said it would instead be using “the bevy of more timely and accurate data sets available to it.”
Headlines
Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against New York Times (CNBC)
Former Biden disinformation czar loses defamation suit against Fox News (National Review)
Trump to award Ben Carson the Presidential Medal of Freedom (Fox News)
Pritzker’s office scrubs photo with Chicago “peacekeeper” later charged in deadly robbery (Fox News)
Late in the race, Harris campaign analytics found her ahead in every battleground state (National Review)
Humor: 7 great new jobs for Jimmy Kimmel (Babylon Bee)
“My husband, Charlie — he wanted to save young men just like the one who took his life. … On the cross, our Savior said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ That man, that young man, I forgive him. I forgive him because it was what Christ did, and it’s what Charlie would do. The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know, from the Gospel, is love and always love. Love for our enemies, and love for those who persecute us.”
That message from Erika Kirk, the widow of the late Charlie Kirk, was one of the most powerfully moving public moments I’ve ever seen. She delivered an epic eulogy for her husband at yesterday’s memorial service in Phoenix, and 21 minutes into her 27-minute address, that was a highlight for the ages.
In echoing Jesus Christ on the cross, Kirk could no longer hold back her flowing tears. Before that moment, she paused to whisper a brief prayer — “God, help me.” When she had uttered those incredible words of forgiveness, she bowed her head briefly and sobbed, knowing the weight of what she had just done. The 73,000 people in the stadium rose to their feet and applauded, many freely crying.
Perhaps 100 million people heard the Gospel.
Heck, even The Washington Post editorial board wrote an article titled, “The Erika Kirk example.”
My prayer in the moment as I watched her strength was that Tyler Robinson would somehow hear this message of forgiveness and repent. I pray that Tyler, too, finds Jesus and can meet Charlie one day. What a glorious tribute to the power of Christ’s salvation that would be!
On Earth, Robinson must face justice for his evil deed. Time will tell if eternity is another matter.
For the misguided souls who excused or even cheered Kirk’s assassination, I hope Erika’s message disabused them of the preposterous fiction that Charlie was a hater or a fascist. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Erika Kirk’s entire speech was filled with the love and heartache of a grieving widow, the celebration of a life well lived and gut-wrenching grief over a life cut short. It was a moving tribute to a man she clearly loved with all her heart and soul, and she promised to carry on his work as the new CEO of Turning Point USA.
Earlier in her remarks, Kirk noted a chasm between the Right and Left. She didn’t explicitly mention George Floyd, the career criminal who died of a combination of drugs and heart failure under the knee of Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin, wrongly convicted of murder. But she didn’t have to.
After Charlie’s assassination, we didn’t see violence. We didn’t see rioting. We didn’t see revolution. Instead, we saw what my husband always prayed he would see in this country. We saw revival. This past week, we saw people open a Bible for the first time in a decade. We saw people pray for the first time since they were children. We saw people go to a church service for the first time in their entire lives.
She talked about how difficult and challenging those things could be. “Being a follower of Christ is not easy. It’s not supposed to be,” she said. “Jesus said: ‘If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.’ He said He would be persecuted. He said we would be persecuted. And Charlie knew that — and happily carried his cross all the way to the end.”
What a tribute she gave.
She wasn’t the only one, either. I lost count, but it seemed like two dozen people delivered eulogies, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and President Donald Trump.
Many, if not most, of them acknowledged and emphasized Charlie Kirk’s Christian faith. But Rubio delivered as clear a presentation of the Gospel as you may ever hear from a public official. He spoke of God’s creation, the desecration of sin, the need for a Savior, and Christ’s death and resurrection on our behalf. It was rousing and marvelous and unlike anything you’d ever expect from any other recent secretary of state.
Vance opened up personally to say, “You know, I was telling somebody backstage that I always felt a little uncomfortable talking about my faith in public, as much as I loved the Lord, and as much as it was an important part of my life. I have talked more about Jesus Christ in the past two weeks than I have my entire time in public life. And that is an undeniable legacy of the great Charlie Kirk.”
Time won’t permit me to cover much more of the five-hour service, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t touch on Donald Trump’s concluding speech. Frankly, I wish he’d spoken before Erika, but alas.
Trump had wonderful moments, rightly calling Kirk a “martyr,” as did many other speakers. He brought it home for listeners: “Charlie’s murder was not just an attack on one man or one movement — it was an attack on our entire nation. … The gun was pointed at him, but the bullet was aimed at all of us.” He brought hope, saying, “The assassin failed in his quest because Charlie’s message has not been silenced. It now is bigger and better and stronger than ever before, and it’s not even close.”
Unfortunately, Trump rambled for 45 minutes in a stemwinder that touched on a lot of his usual stump speech grievances or policy boasts. Worse, he flat-out contradicted the Kirks’ message: “He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents, and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry. I am sorry, Erika.”
At least he left the door open for Erika and others to “convince me that’s not right,” but what a small and petty moment at an otherwise truly moving memorial service.
I’ll close with the hope that Erika found even in the moment when she saw Charlie’s body.
“[I looked] directly at my husband’s murdered body. I saw the wound that ended his life,” she explained. “But there was something else. Even in death, I could see the man that I love. … I also saw on his lips the faintest smile. And that told me something important. It revealed to me a great mercy from God in this tragedy. When I saw that, it told me Charlie didn’t suffer. … One moment, Charlie was doing what he loved — arguing and debating on campus, fighting for the gospel and truth in front of a big crowd. And then he blinked. He blinked and saw his Savior in paradise.”
I hope and pray that everyone who saw Kirk’s memorial service and everyone reading this article welcomes Jesus Christ into your heart so that He, in turn, will welcome you into paradise with a smile.
Douglas Andrews: Dearborn and the American Future — A sizable Michigan city is now majority Arab-American, and its political leadership has made it clear that dissenting American opinions are unwelcome.
Thomas Gallatin: DC Dems Deny Effectiveness of Trump’s Crime Crackdown — In an attempt to counter Republican lawmakers’ efforts to exert more federal control over DC’s law enforcement, Democrats claim that Trump’s crackdown had little to do with crime dropping.
Gregory Lyakhov: Hochul Mirrors Mamdani, No Matter What She Claims — For parents, students, and taxpayers, the choice is clear: accept a future defined by failure, or demand accountability before another generation is lost.
Roger Helle: Is Judgment at the Gate? (Part I) — God was about to bring His punishment upon the nation that had conquered the known world. Now, it was Babylon’s time to face judgment.
Stop Making Jimmy Kimmel Your Martyr — Jimmy Kimmel has been kicked off the airwaves after a gross lie, and somehow the Left thinks this is a threat to free speech.
‘Everything They Predicted Was 100% Wrong!’ — Batya Ungar-Sargon breaks down Trump’s economic revolution — from tariffs and immigration controls to re-industrialization and the push to restore American manufacturing.
Staying Put in a State on Fire — While thousands are fleeing the madness, Elaine Culotti’s staying put — not out of denial, but out of determination to fix what’s broken.
“I do believe those of you who are interested in rewriting this hateful man’s history are full of sh*t.” —Rep. Ilhan Omar on Charlie Kirk while speaking in a church
“His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant, uneducated, and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans.” —Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who voted “No” on a resolution to honor Charlie Kirk
Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud
“Our ultimate goal is to … get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented there are here.” —Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer
Leftist Hysteria
“It is outrageous. It’s a page right out of Xi’s playbook. This is just despicable, disgusting, and against Democratic values. Trump and his allies [are doing what] autocracies do. … I am just outraged by it. Again, this is what dictators do. This is what Xi would do. This is what Putin would do.” —Sen. Chuck Schumer (Didn’t we just have a conversation about lowering the rhetorical temperature? Wasn’t a young man just inspired to assassinate somebody because of leftist hate rhetoric comparing Trump and his supporters to “autocrats,” “dictators,” and tyrants like Xi and Putin?)
“It’s happening. The takedown of Jimmy Kimmel is likely the start of a campaign to use the murder of Charlie Kirk as a pretext to use the power of the White House to wipe out Trump’s critics and his political opponents.” —Sen. Chris Murphy
Re: The Left
“Once you start believing that someone who disagrees with you is evil, violence against that person can seem like justice. It makes you lose all perspective.” —Sen. John Kennedy
“Leftists who constantly accuse Christians and conservatives of being ‘Nazis,’ ‘fascists,’ and ‘dangers to our democracy’ also bear part of the responsibility for the attempted assassinations of Donald Trump and the actual assassination of Charlie Kirk.” —Gary Bauer
“If you do not like the Trump administration using power the Democrats have used, end that power. The only way to de-escalate American politics right now is to deprive both sides of the power used to attack the other.” —Erick Erickson
Make It Make Sense
“So let me get this straight… Republicans should not use the power they currently have in pursuit of justice and the common good — i.e., govern — because Democrats might one day again have and use power to undermine justice and the common good, as they always do. I’ll take my chances.” —Michael Knowles
For the Record
“If [Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries] choose to vote against this clean, completely nonpartisan CR, then they will be choosing to shut the government down.” —House Speaker Mike Johnson
And Last…
“NPR? Thought they were gone. … Are they still here? Oh, good. Congratulations. Won’t be for long.” —Donald Trump to an NPR reporter
ON THIS DAY in 1776, Nathan Hale was hanged by the British in New York City. The teacher-turned-spy famously said, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
Please join us in prayer for our nation — that righteous leaders would rise and prevail and we would be united as Americans. Pray for the protection of our uniformed Military Patriots, Veterans, First Responders, and their families. Lift up your Patriot Post team and our mission to support and defend our legacy of American Liberty and our Republic’s Founding Principles, in order that the fires of freedom would be ignited in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.
In this nine-minute video, Greg Lukianoff joins Winston Marshall to discuss the historical parallels between fascism, communism, and socialism, and how authoritarian ideologies threaten free speech. They explore the overlooked legacy of Karl Marx, Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance, and why the world never had its reckoning with socialism. This conversation dives deep into history, philosophy, and the urgent fight for freedom of expression.
Image generated by AI using OpenAI’s DALL·E, September 2025.
At the Charlie Kirk memorial, President Trump spoke bluntly about left-wing violence, declaring, “The violence comes largely from the left.”
He described Antifa attacks on protesters and events, adding, “Many of these people are paid agitators. When you see they all have the same beautifully printed sign, every sign is identical. It comes out of a top-level print shop. That’s not the kind of sign made in somebody’s basement. Those are paid for by very bad people, and hopefully we are going to be finding out through the DOJ who those people are.”
Trump has vowed to designate Antifa and other groups promoting left-wing violence as terrorist organizations. In theory, such a designation would make it easier for the Department of Justice to bring charges against those who finance them. The problem, however, is that under U.S. law there is no mechanism to label domestic groups as terrorist organizations. The Foreign Terrorist Organization designation applies to international groups such as Hamas or MS-13, but no equivalent exists for domestic organizations.
The primary barrier is constitutional. First Amendment protections prevent the government from banning or criminalizing organizations based solely on beliefs, speech, or associations, even extremist ones. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that speech can only be restricted when it incites “imminent lawless action.” This precedent has made it extremely difficult for lawmakers to treat domestic extremist groups the same way they treat foreign terrorist organizations.
Beyond constitutional issues, practical concerns also stand in the way. Declaring domestic organizations “terrorist” would effectively criminalize membership without individual trials, raising serious due process questions. Equal protection challenges could also arise, since such powers might be applied selectively against disfavored groups. Critics warn that these powers could be weaponized by future administrations to target political opponents. If he could have, it really seemed like Biden wanted to designate MAGA.
Others note the definitional problem of “domestic terrorism,” which is vague and could be stretched to include groups that are not violent. Finally, there is the danger of enforcement overreach, which could inhibit legitimate political dissent and activism.
Without a domestic “terrorist organization” designation, the U.S. prosecutes individual crimes, conspiracy, weapons charges, and acts of violence, rather than banning organizations outright. The FBI investigates domestic terrorism as criminal activity, not organizational membership.
Additionally, even without the terrorist designation, the Department of Justice has ample tools to trace funding and prosecute violent extremist networks. RICO allows prosecutors to treat a group as a criminal enterprise, targeting leaders and financiers while seizing assets tied to racketeering, and it has been used against hate groups and militias. Conspiracy statutes (18 U.S.C. § 371) enable charges against those who agree to commit federal crimes, including financial supporters, often before violence occurs.
Material-support laws (18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A/2339B) criminalize providing money, training, or weapons tied to specific offenses, while weapons and explosives statutes cover illegal gun purchases and National Firearms Act violations, including “straw” financing.
Civil-rights laws (18 U.S.C. §§ 241/242) cover conspiracies to intimidate or harm people based on protected characteristics, with hate-crime enhancements. Under previous administrations, however, hate-crime laws were never applied to protect the rights of Christians and whites. Left-wing violent groups (like Antifa) routinely target people based on their Christian beliefs, conservative politics, or race (when white).
However, the way these laws are written, they should theoretically protect any group attacked specifically because of race or religion. Hate-crime laws theoretically protect all groups based on protected characteristics. Trump has already issued an executive order protecting Christians from discrimination, and he is bound to encourage the DOJ to use hate-crime laws to protect whites and Christians.
Financial crimes such as money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956), tax evasion, and structuring are also powerful tools to uncover and disrupt funding streams. This multi-pronged approach often proves more effective than a single “terror” label because it attacks the entire criminal ecosystem, organizers, facilitators, and funders alike.
If investigators can prove foreign funding or direction behind a domestic group, a different, and often stronger, set of legal tools comes into play. Only foreign organizations can be designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), but if a U.S.-based network is effectively a branch or under the control of a foreign group, prosecutors can pursue material-support charges (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) tied to that foreign organization, and the State Department can consider designation for the foreign principal.
Separately, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requires anyone acting “at the order, request, or under the direction or control” of a foreign principal, and engaging in political activities—to register; taking foreign money for such activities can trigger FARA, and willful non-registration is a felony. Prosecutors can also use 18 U.S.C. § 951 (“agent of a foreign government”), which directly criminalizes clandestine work on behalf of a foreign government and carries serious penalties.
A proven foreign nexus unlocks national-security tools: FISA surveillance (with the required probable cause), Treasury/OFAC sanctions that freeze U.S. assets and cut off transactions, and immigration consequences (visa denials, removals). The key evidence is financial transfers from abroad, coordination or direction by foreign entities, and indications of foreign-government involvement, including via cutouts.
Strategically, this route often proves more effective because foreign principals lack First Amendment protections, surveillance authorities are broader, asset-forfeiture options are more aggressive, and public support is typically stronger for countering foreign influence.
For many of us, freedom above all means the liberty to sin. But, according to the Bible, this is the opposite of freedom. Sin has nothing to do with liberty. Sin destroys freedom. Sin enslaves.
[While I’m in Ecuador, I’m posting columns and articles that I wrote in the early 2000’s for Tabletalk Magazine, which kindly gave me permission to do this. We’ll get back to the Monday Miscellanies when I get back.]
This column is about the important, but much-misunderstood concept of freedom. I play off the conventional understanding with what the Bible says, going on to discuss Luther on the subject, then showing that even political freedom must be grounded in that theological understanding.
I revised this one a little bit from what originally appeared in Tabletalk. I found a source I could link to for Luther’s The Freedom of the Christian, changing the quotation accordingly. I learned that my original quotation from James Madison was probably not actually said by James Madison–Luther not being the only one who is often quoted for something he did not say–so I switched it out for something he really did say and is actually even better. And I moved the quotation from John Adams, giving a link to prove that he did indeed say it.
Sweet Land of Liberty
America is mad for liberty. Ours is a free country. We enjoy freedom of speech and of religion, the freedom of the press and the freedom to bear arms. And rightly so. But though Americans love freedom, many of them have forgotten what it means.
Today many of us assume that freedom means getting to do whatever we want. Any restrictions on our behavior—whether from the state, the church, or some other person—violate our freedom. And, for many of us, freedom above all means the liberty to sin.
But, according to the Bible, this is the opposite of freedom. Sin has nothing to do with liberty. Sin destroys freedom. Sin enslaves.
Jesus Himself makes that point: “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). The Apostle Paul also talks about how sin turns us into slaves (Romans 6:16-22).
If we are honest, we can see this truth in our own experience. An alcoholic may want to be free to get drunk. A drug addict may demand his liberty to take drugs. But alcoholics and drug addicts are not free. Their appetites enslave them. The same is true of people addicted to pornography or in thrall to some other sexual compulsion. As the sin takes away the sinner’s self-respect, his money, and his happiness, the sinner may even want to stop doing what he has been doing. But he cannot.
On some level, all sins are like this. Anger takes us over. Pride prevents us from treating others as we should. Stealing, lying, disrespect, hate, or you name it, they all enslave us.
Though we might learn to control our worst impulses through external constraints—whether of shame, fear of discovery, or self-discipline—sin continues to lurk deep inside. We try to exert our will power. But what if the problem is precisely with our will?
Luther wrote a book entitled The Bondage of the Will. His point is that our will is in bondage to sin. What we want to do, if we give in to our primal desires, is to sin. The laws of church and state, our rational awareness of consequences, our conscience and other restrictions on our external conduct can make possible a social order made up of sinful human beings. But morally and also spiritually, we are slaves to sin.
But after Jesus talked about how sinners are enslaved, he gives the good news: “If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).
Jesus, through the power of His sacrificial death and resurrection, frees sinners from the bondage of sin. By the power of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel, we are set free. Though while we are still in the flesh we may still struggle with sin, we are free from sin’s dominion. To the extent we are in Christ, through faith, we no longer even need the law to keep us in line. We voluntarily—freely—do God’s will, not out of compulsion or threats, but because we really want to please Him, and, because we are in God’s love, we really do love our neighbors.
Luther also wrote a book entitled The Freedom of the Christian. “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none,” he wrote. At the same time, “A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.”
In the gospel, the Christian is spiritually free: “With respect to the kingship, every Christian is by faith so exalted above all things that, by virtue of a spiritual power, he is lord of all things without exception, so that nothing can do him any harm. As a matter of fact, all things are made subject to him and are compelled to serve him in obtaining salvation.” And yet, in the Christian life, the man of faith voluntarily makes himself a servant to his neighbors:
This is a truly Christian life. Here faith is truly active through love [Gal. 5:6], that is, it finds expression in works of the freest service, cheerfully and lovingly done, with which a man willingly serves another without hope of reward; and for himself he is satisfied with the fullness and wealth of his faith. . . . Hence, as our heavenly Father has in Christ freely come to our aid, we also ought freely to help our neighbor through our body and its works, and each one should become as it were a Christ to the other that we may be Christs to one another and Christ may be the same in all, that is, that we may be truly Christians.
The Bible exalts freedom. “For freedom Christ has set us free,” says the Apostle Paul. Stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1). Notice that He has set us free “for freedom.” Freedom is an end in itself. Furthermore, freedom is a sign of the Holy Spirit’s presence. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17).
Is there a connection between our spiritual freedom in Christ and the civil freedoms we enjoy as Americans?
According to the American founders, people cannot govern themselves politically unless they can govern themselves morally. Said James Madison, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary” (Federalist 51). Of course, we aren’t angels, so government is necessary. “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Politicians aren’t angels either, so they too must be brought under control. A free country requires a rule of law, both to keep citizens in line and to keep the government in line.
Ultimately, even political freedom rests on personal virtue. As John Adams said, “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other.” People who are slaves of sin require laws, authorities, police officers, and government control to prevent them from harming other people. But people who have been freed from sin do not need external controls on their behavior. They internalize the moral law. They voluntarily—of their own free will—do what they should. They govern themselves, freely directing their own behavior; therefore, they are capable of governing themselves in a free political order.
That free political order is not just for Christians, of course, and others who can, by whatever external means, govern their desires can also enjoy its liberties. But laws—and prisons—will still be necessary for those who refuse to govern themselves.
Meanwhile, those who wish to preserve their freedom must be on guard against both tyrants and their own sin.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) received over 150,000 applications from citizens looking to join the agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a Sept. 16 statement.
An ICE vehicle sits near the Cook County jail and courthouse complex in Chicago, Illinois on Sept. 8, 2025 Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images
“We have already issued more than 18,000 tentative job offers. Americans are answering their country’s call to serve and help remove murderers, pedophiles, rapists, terrorists, and gang members from our country,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said.
DHS said that ICE is offering a “robust” package of joining incentives, including a signing bonus of up to $50,000, enhanced retirement benefits, and student loan repayment and forgiveness options.
The ICE recruitment drive, “Defend the Homeland,” was launched by the DHS on July 29. At present, the agency employs approximately 20,000 law enforcement and support personnel across some 400 offices in the United States and internationally.
ICE’s recruitment drive is backed by funding from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that allocated $170 billion for border security and immigration enforcement over a five-year period.
ICE was granted $76.5 billion, almost 10 times the agency’s typical annual budget.
Out of that, $30 billion will go towards hiring 10,000 more staff members, with the agency aiming to deport a million people annually.
In a Sept. 19 statement, DHS said that a recent career expo in Provo, Utah, was a “resounding success,” with over 1,500 people registering for career opportunities.
“In the first day alone, DHS extended more than 370 tentative job offers for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers. In total, DHS extended almost 500 tentative job offers, and we anticipate additional selections in the near future with over 200 more completed applications received,” Tricia McLaughlin, DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, said.
A similar ICE job fair in Dallas, Texas, last month was also a success. Despite protests at the site against the agency and the Trump administration, the applicant flow did not stop.
Cecil Foster Jr., an attorney of 53 years who taught criminal law to military police, told The Epoch Times that he hoped to come out of retirement and serve as an attorney for ICE.
“I want to support the idea of legal immigrants as opposed to illegal immigrants, especially the criminal type. I want to support ICE in rounding up these bad guys,” he said.
Protestors demonstrate against ongoing ICE operations while blocking the Sixth Street Bridge between Boyle Heights and downtown L.A. in Los Angeles, on July 1, 2025. Mario Tama/Getty Images
Democrats have pushed forward multiple bills against federal immigration enforcement.
In July. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced the Visible Identification Standards for Immigration-Based Law Enforcement (VISIBLE) Act of 2025 that would ban immigration enforcement officers from concealing their identity while conducting enforcement activities in public, the lawmaker’s office said in a July 14 statement.
Meanwhile, a similar bill—the No Secret Police Act—was passed by the California Legislature last week, according to a Sept. 11 statement from Sen. Scott Wiener’s (D-Calif.) office.
The bill bans federal and local law enforcement officers from concealing their identities using “extreme masking” in the state, the statement said.
“Law enforcement should never be easily confused with the guy in the ski mask robbing a liquor store, yet that’s what’s happening with ICE’s extreme masking,” said Wiener. “California must hold those who are threatening our communities accountable and restore confidence in our local law enforcement who are proud to show their faces.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom now has until Oct. 13 to sign or veto the measure.
In a Sept. 16 statement, the DHS called on Newsom to veto the Act, warning that forcing officers to show faces could put their lives as well as the lives of their family members at risk.
“Sen. Scott Wiener’s legislation banning our federal law enforcement from wearing masks and his rhetoric comparing them to ’secret police’—likening them to the Gestapo—is despicable,” said McLaughlin.
“Our federal law enforcement officers face a 1000 percent increase in assaults against them, unprecedented online doxing, and are having cars used as weapons against them. Once again, sanctuary politicians are trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers.”
Darlene McCormick Sanchez contributed to this report.
In 1968, the radicals among the Baby Boomers learned that they could achieve their agenda through violence, and we’re seeing the fruit of that lesson today.
Andrew Kolvet, executive producer for The Charlie Kirk Show, said the memorial honoring the slain conservative activist saw “100 million overall streams.” The post Charlie Kirk Producer Andrew Kolvet Claims Memorial Had ‘100 Million Overall Streams’ appeared first on Breitbart .
Truth2Freedom's Blog 