Save America Ministries

Guest (Male): This is Viewpoint with attorney and author Chuck Crismier. Viewpoint is a one-hour talk show confronting the issues of America's heart and home. And now, with today's edition of Viewpoint, here is Chuck Crismier.

Chuck Crismier: Who won the war, and is it a matter of good and evil? If you were the devil, what would you do with regard to the issue of Iran? Would you say that one side is good and the other evil, or reverse it and say that the other side is evil and the other side is good? What would you say? Well, if you were the devil, if I were the devil, I'd call good evil and evil good. And so the Bible tells us, "Woe unto them who call good evil and evil good."

But what is evil? How would we even know what evil is? And is it possible, is it even appropriate to negotiate with evil? And that's what we want to talk about here today on Viewpoint: negotiating with evil. Well, first of all, you have to know what evil is, and then you have to know what evil does, and then you've got to be able to discern between good and evil. How do we do that?

Well, in this day and age in the United States of America that says it's under God, we have that motto, one nation under God, we don't seem to understand the difference between good and evil in oftentimes political and moral and many other ways. We call evil good and good evil. So how do we apply this to the issue of the war with Iran, formerly known as Persia in the Bible?

Pete Hegseth, the Captain of War, the Secretary of War for the United States, declared a decisive victory in Iran. He credits divine providence. He said God deserves all the glory. He called it a big day for world peace. Operation Epic Fury, he said, was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield.

The ceasefire, which was mediated by Pakistan yesterday, found support from world leaders including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose office backed the move. Hegseth, who is an evangelical Christian, repeatedly invoked divine providence and biblical rhetoric to imply God's favor rests upon the U.S. actions against the Iranian regime.

During a prayer service at the Pentagon last month, Hegseth quoted from the imprecatory psalms and read from a U.S. military chaplain's prayer that used language reminiscent of the Old Testament to invoke divine wrath against the enemies of the United States. When Trump was asked during the same briefing if he believes God supports the U.S. in the Iranian war, he said, "I do, because God is good. And because God is good, God wants His people to be taken care of."

In other words, by implication, Iran is evil. Is Iran evil? Is the United States good? Is the United States good and evil? Is Iran good and evil? How do you discern? How do you discriminate? And can you negotiate with evil? You might think it's quite an easy thing to talk about this, but it's not.

And today on Viewpoint, we're going to attempt in 55 minutes to pierce to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, discerning the thoughts and intents of our own hearts and minds when we talk about this matter of evil and negotiating with evil. So I welcome you to Viewpoint. I'm Chuck Crismier. It's conversation, as always, with ever-increasing conviction—talk that transforms.

And I trust that today will even have that effect in your life because, in one sense, the U.S. versus Iran actually images in a symbolic way the relationship between you and others, or you and the outside world, or you and whoever else. Between me and whoever else. You see, there are always implications, not just for them but for me and for you.

So first of all, we need to define our terms. What is evil? How would you describe evil? Just asking. Because if we don't have an understanding of what evil is, then how can we talk about what good is? You could say evil is the absence of good. Well, is that what evil is? No, I don't think so. I actually did some inquiry concerning this matter to see if my own thoughts concerning evil coincided with the thoughts of others, perhaps even the infinite wisdom of AI.

Google tells me through AI that in the Bible, evil is defined as the corruption of creational goodness, encompassing actions, thoughts, or forces that diminish life and destroy God's creation. It is not a co-equal force with God, but a parasitic power stemming from the rebellion of Satan and the disobedience of humanity. That's not a bad definition.

It goes on to say the nature of evil is a perversion of God's intent, originating in the human heart and involving both moral wrongdoing and physical suffering. The origin of evil, the Bible says, is due to the fall of Satan and the subsequent fall of humanity in Genesis chapter three, asking the question, by the way, "Hath God said?" It all stems from "Hath God said?"

Next, the resolution. Well, the Christian message promises that evil is overcome through the cross, ultimate judgment, and its final destruction in the new heaven and earth. So believers are called to resist evil, abhorring it and overcoming it with good. I thought this was quite good coming from AI, artificial intelligence. In fact, it's almost more intelligent than an awful lot of professing Christians out there who wouldn't know what to say.

Evil is not the absence of good. Good and evil are objectively distinct. They're not crossovers with one another. And the Bible tells us, listen carefully, that the fear of the Lord is to hate evil. I want you to remember that. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil. Can you understand then why the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom? Because it actually enables us to discern the difference between good and evil.

The fear of the Lord is to turn away from evil and also to hate evil. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil," said the prophet Isaiah, "who put darkness for light and light for darkness." Well, those are very good ways to begin our traverse over the land, the distance between the United States and Iran, to help us discern what's going on, what's not going on, and whether or not we're actually playing games rather than war in attempting to negotiate with evil.

I hope you'll stay tuned, friends, because there's so much more to talk about here. Oh, this is going to get deep for us. It's going to have application for each one of us. The nuances may not be quite as nuanced as we might think, but then we think of them as nuanced because we're just learning how to negotiate with evil—not necessarily a good thing. We'll be back.

Guest (Male): Once upon a time, children could pray and read their bibles in school. Divorces were practically unknown, as was child abuse. In our once great America, virginity and chastity were popular virtues, and homosexuality was an abomination. So what happened in just one generation?

Hi, I'm Chuck Crismier, and I urge you to join me daily on Viewpoint, where we discuss the most challenging issues touching our hearts and homes. Could America's moral slide relate to the fourth commandment? Listen to Viewpoint on this radio station or anytime at saveus.org.

Chuck Crismier: When we consider the idea of negotiating with evil, perhaps we should actually get a little closer to home with regard to the matter of what evil is. What does it look like? And so, in a practical way, the way most of us would probably be able to understand this is to look at some synonyms, that is, words that are similar or express similar ideas to at least one or more aspects of what evil is.

The first is the word wicked. Wicked means morally reprehensible, often deliberately. The word immoral also comes to mind, violating accepted standards of right and wrong. Malicious, tending to cause harm or pain. Depraved, morally corrupt or perverted. Sinful, contrary to religious or moral law. Malevolent, having or showing a wish to do evil to others. Vile or sinister, extremely unpleasant or menacing. Atrocious, extremely cruel and shocking. Malicious, intending to cause harm or pain.

Well, quite frankly, it sounds to me like each one of these is somewhat of a corollary to the word evil. And collectively they help us to understand what evil is. But then we have to look further. And here's where the problem lies. So, for instance, if the word wicked means morally reprehensible, what is morally reprehensible? To whom is it morally reprehensible?

Is what Iran does in shooting 30 to 40 thousand of its own citizens when they stood up and were seeking to ask for a new government—was that morally reprehensible? Well, apparently to the Iranian government it was not morally reprehensible, but to the rest of us it was. Was it wicked? Well, I guess it depends on whose definition you're using for wicked—whose viewpoint you're using.

You see, viewpoint really is important. There is nothing that is a neutral viewpoint. All viewpoints have consequences. So, is it immoral? Is Iran immoral? Is Islam immoral? Well, it depends on who you are. It depends on where you're coming from. Is it immoral to throw acid in the face of a woman who allows some hairs to creep out from under her hijab, which is what they do in Iran?

Is that immoral? They say, "No, it's just keeping us straight according to the Quran and the Hadiths that Mohammed gave us." How about malicious, intending to cause harm or pain? How about the Evin prison over there? A notorious prison. Is that malicious, intending to cause harm? Absolutely, absolutely yes. They use it for terrifying people. Horrific things done in the Evin prison in order to get what they want out of somebody until they kill them.

Depraved: morally corrupt or perverted. What does that mean? According to whose viewpoint? If Mohammed says in the Quran that Muslims should cut off the heads of Jews and infidels, meaning Christians or anybody else that does not submit to Islam—is that depraved? Is it malevolent, showing wish to do evil to others? Well, again, it's a definition of evil. They're trying to get rid of those who are contrary to allegiance to Allah.

And therein lies the words Akbar, you see. Allahu Akbar. God is great, Mohammed is the greatest. That's what the words mean. How about malevolent, having or showing a wish to do evil to others? Or vile or sinister, extremely unpleasant or menacing? Atrocious, extremely cruel or shocking? Well, the interesting thing about this is that Iran, through its mullahs and Khomeini, has declared America "The Great Satan" and declared Israel "The Little Satan."

In other words, America and Israel are seen and portrayed as the ultimate evil, the ultimate evil from the true Muslim's viewpoint. You see now the quagmire that we're in. And there are implications for this—tremendous implications. Can you negotiate with evil? Can the United States and/or Israel negotiate with Iran?

Can Iran negotiate with the United States or Israel, or anybody else for that matter, since everybody other than Muslims is evil in the eyes of Islam by definition? Because they're called to be killed. Find them. "Find them behind every tree," said Mohammed. "Take off their heads." How would you describe that? It's a design to create complete lordship for Allah under Islamic rule, Sharia law in the entire world.

Can you negotiate with that thinking? And if so, how? Is that like negotiating with the devil? Will it leave nothing but a Faustian bargain where you risk compromising values for a peace deal that's not going to last? These are the kinds of things that we're dealing with, and here we have a so-called ceasefire that is not ceasing anything because Iran continues to fire its missiles and its drones all over the Middle East.

Hezbollah continues to fire them on behalf of Iran into Israel. So where is the peace? Peace, peace, but there is no peace, even though there's a cessation of war but still no peace. This is supposedly laying the foundation for negotiation. Negotiation of what? Well, let's talk about that. Let's talk about that because Iran has presented what they call the 10-point proposal.

America has presented what Mr. Trump calls the 15-point proposal. And they're radically different. We're not going to take a lot of time here comparing the two, but the New York Times gives us a layout of the 10-point proposal. And here it is. First, an American guarantee of non-aggression with Iran. Iran officials want to ensure a formalized end to hostilities that is more permanent. In other words, let's get over this once and for all.

Number two: Iran maintains control of the Strait of Hormuz. Really? Well, one says that that alone is sufficient to call it evil. That that is evil to allow Iran to control the Strait of Hormuz is fundamentally evil by definition. Why? Because it would allow Iran to control the world, to control the world's energy. And therein lies another problem, you see.

Number three: ending the regional war on all fronts, including Iran's allies, Hezbollah in Lebanon. Well, their allies. How about Russia that is supporting Iran? Russia that built the first nuclear reactor, the Bushehr reactor in Iran. Russia has committed itself to build at least two more nuclear reactors. So is Russia now going to be roped into this agreement? Not likely. But by implications.

Number four: withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from all bases and positions in the region. In other words, render Iran capable of doing whatever it wants to do whenever it wants to do it without any kind of oversight, any kind of pressure that would compel it to do what it says it's going to do. Number five: reparations to Iran for war damages.

Number six: acceptance of Iran's right to nuclear enrichment. Really? I thought that's what this was about in the first place—zero enrichment for uranium. Number seven: lifting all primary sanctions on Iran. Number eight: lifting all secondary sanctions on Iran. Number nine: termination of all resolutions against Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Number 10: termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran. Well, when are they going to stop those resolutions against Israel? They have far more resolutions against Israel than Iran under the Security Council, under the UN. So you take a look at these 10-point proposals and you wonder: how do they ever expect this to be the foundation for an agreement?

Is that even remotely possible? Are they throwing down the gauntlet, or is it just, "We'll try to get the most we can and then trust to see that we can get most of what we want"? Is that where this is going? In other words, it's requiring negotiation. But if one side says the other is fundamentally evil, which both sides say the other is, how do you negotiate with evil?

So I ask this question of the infinite wisdom of Google through AI again. It's fascinating to do something like this. Simple questions. So I said, "What is negotiating with evil?" And here was the response: Adversaries who cause intentional severe harm; a complex diplomatic or business challenge that balances moral integrity against practical resolution.

Experts suggest that while emotional moralistic reactions often reject such engagement, entering talks can be a tactical, sometimes necessary move to end conflict, protect innocent lives, or achieve strategic goals. Yes, I understand that. But it doesn't resolve the problem. All it does is temporarily give a promise of peace.

It doesn't resolve the problem. The problem between North and South Korea has never been resolved. Ever. It still exists to this day. They're divided. You have supposedly two countries that continue to hate each other. And North Korea wants to destroy—not destroy, but completely assimilate South Korea and will do everything possible using military power, including nuclear power, to do it.

Here's the dilemma. It's a dilemma between fighting it out, that is, the moral duty, and bargaining, which you would call pragmatism, often resulting in what is called a Faustian bargain where one risks compromising values for a peace or deal. Now this, you see, is where Donald Trump comes in. Remember, he wrote the book *The Art of the Deal*. So he's an expert.

He understands how to negotiate. He is an expert negotiator. I have watched his mechanisms and they're very similar to what a lawyer would do in negotiating the settlement of a case. Not a criminal case so much, but a civil case. For instance, a personal injury case or a case in the business world. And each side gives up a little here and there and they try to find the place where they can enter into a peaceful resolution and not have to go to trial and lose it all.

So in this instance, is that an appropriate thing to do? Is pragmatism right or must we adhere to principle? We'll be right back.

Guest (Male): There is so much more about Chuck Crismier and Save America Ministries on our website, saveus.org. For example, under the marriage section, God has marriage on His mind. Chuck has some great resources to strengthen your marriage. First off, a fact sheet on the state of the marital union, a fact sheet on the state of ministry, marriage, and morals—saveus.org.

Marriage, divorce, and remarriage: what does the Bible really teach about this? Find all of this at saveus.org. Also, a letter to pastors, the Hosea Project—saveus.org—and many more resources to strengthen your marriage. It's all on Chuck's website, saveus.org. Again, you can listen to Chuck's Viewpoint broadcasts live and archived at Save America Ministries' website at saveus.org.

Chuck Crismier: Welcome back to Viewpoint. I'm Chuck Crismier. Today we're asking the fundamental question: Can you negotiate with evil? Should you negotiate with evil? Can you negotiate with the devil? That's what Eve tried to do in the garden. And then Adam joined in it. And the rest is history, where evil came from. Evil came from the effort to negotiate with Satan in the garden.

He asked a fundamental question: "Hath God said?" Eve acknowledged that God had said. Adam had told her, had told her very clearly as the head of the home what God had said: "Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die." So Satan, the seducer, the deceiver, put a spin on what God had said.

He said, "Well, the reason God said that was..." Now here's what Satan is going to do. He's going to attempt to insert a viewpoint into God's mind and mouth that fulfills Satan's purpose. It's not God's real viewpoint; it's a false viewpoint that he's going to insert into the discussion that will be persuasive to allow Eve to join Satan in his own rebellion against God.

So he said, "Well, you know, the reason God said not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not because you will surely die, but because you will become just like God, knowing good and evil." And of course, by implication, he is calling Eve to realize, "Oh wow, wouldn't that be great to be just like God?" Well, that's exactly what motivated Satan to rebel against God in the first place and to see how many he could take down of humankind made in the image of God.

It was the beginning of evil. Now you may not think of it that way, but that's exactly the way it is from the Bible standpoint, from God's viewpoint. What Satan did was evil. In what way was it evil? He sought to induce or seduce Eve and then Adam to go along with his viewpoint, which was contrary to God's authority and what God had said for creation.

That is evil, friends, evil in its most simplistic way. And you can't look this up on the internet; it's not going to say this. It's going to give you all kinds of other things. Evil is disagreeing with God. Period. Evil is disagreeing with God's viewpoint. Period. In whole or in part. You can quote the Bible and still be in disagreement with God.

How many people quote the Bible and say, "Well, God is love. Therefore, we should love one another," which the Bible says. "Therefore, we should embrace the practice of homosexuality and transgenderism because we want to be loving and we want to be caring." You see the point? But God calls those things an abomination. God says he hates divorce, but we say, "Well, but if you're going to be loving, we're just going to have to compromise in that way."

We're going to have to negotiate with God on the issue of divorce because people just can't get along. All right, so God in His mercy says, "Okay, I'm going to let you divorce, not because I want you to divorce—because from the very beginning it was not my intention—but I'm going to give Moses the opportunity to give you a bill of divorcement because of the hardness of your hearts."

But God says on the other hand, "I have already said that what God has put together, man must not put asunder. Therefore, when you try to divorce, you're not going to be allowed to remarry because that would be adultery, and adultery will keep you out of the kingdom of God because it's breaking your commitment, your vow before Me and My vow to you."

That's what God says in His word. Makes it very, very plain. And that's the only view that ties all of the Bible together, Old and New Testament. But we say, "Yes, but..." We try to negotiate over what God has said because of our viewpoints. Now where do we get those viewpoints from? Satan. He does it exactly the same way in our minds and hearts that he did with Eve, exactly the same way.

And he is so successful he's never had to change it. You can virtually negotiate with all evil and find a way to circumvent it and do what you want to do. Really, it's true. And that's what's happened not only in America, but it's happened to the church. It's devastating. We have negotiated with Satan and we have interpreted our feelings as if they are now the full representation of the faith once delivered to the saints.

Friends, feelings are there for us to get along with others and work with them, but not to enslave us. Not to be our Lord. Faith must superimpose itself over our feelings. Always. Now, that means that if we're talking about Iran, if we're talking about America and Iran and Israel, we've got a real problem. There's a dilemma because, on the one hand, Israel feels like it has a moral duty before God because Islam is contrary to the scriptures.

Even though they claim to believe the Bible, they claim that the son of promise given to Abraham was not Isaac but Ishmael. That was the first deception that Satan gave to Mohammed. So Islam is based on a fundamental deception: that Ishmael—because Mohammed was an Arab—he considered in his mind and heart, Satan interjected the thought, "Well, since you're an Arab, then it must have been Ishmael because Ishmael was the firstborn of Abraham. Therefore..." You see the reasoning process.

So when we superimpose our reasoning over what God has said, it's evil from God's viewpoint. So we have to decide: who do we serve? Are we serving our feelings? Are we serving our culture? What are we serving? This, my friends, is so fundamental to understanding walking with the Lord in the light of His word that we cannot ignore it.

And Israel and America are dealing with this issue with regard to Iran, and in fact, Iran's dealing with the same issue with regard to America and with regard to Israel because Iran calls America "The Great Satan." In other words, the heart of all evil. And calls Israel "The Little Satan," the heart of much evil.

So can you negotiate? Can America negotiate? Notwithstanding the fact you wrote the book *The Art of the Deal*, can you honestly and truthfully negotiate with Iran? On what basis? In looking at the caveats, shall we speak, that flow from this whole idea of negotiating with evil, even AI came out with the idea that maintaining the ability to abandon negotiations is crucial if the devil breaks agreements.

Now wait a minute. Who's the devil? The devil is anyone that doesn't keep his word. Now tell me, do you expect Iran to keep its word at all? It doesn't even have the moral understanding to keep its word. Why? Because one of the fundamental principles of Islam is called *taqiyya*, which means to lie for the advancement of Islam. That's fundamental.

It's a belief system. Whatever you have to do to advance the cause of Islam—whether you kill all the Jews, kill all the Christians, lie, cheat, whatever you have to do to advance the cause of Islam—that is Mohammedanism at its root. Now, there may be many Muslims who would disagree and say, "Well, I don't live that way," and I understand that. There are many Christians that say they're Christians too and they don't live according to Christ.

We're talking about the actual believers now. Now, negotiation doesn't always mean sacrificing principles, but it requires navigating ethical pitfalls to ensure a deal does not reward evil actions. Well, how can you do that here? Because Iran is dedicated to the destruction of the United States by its own declaration. That's fundamental. That is their fundamental driving viewpoint.

It's not a corollary to life; it is the life—the destruction of Israel and the destruction of America. How do you negotiate with that idea? You don't. It's impossible to negotiate with it. And whenever you do when you try to negotiate with it, you end up losing the battle. And that's why this article came out today: "Why Iran looks like the real winner."

What emerged from the war was not peace, nor even a credible sentiment, but merely a pause shaped by the exposed limits of American strength. The temporary nature of the pause is showing weakness, not strength. We'll be back.

Guest (Male): Have you ever considered what the early church was like? Many people are developing a hard longing for a greater fulfillment in our practices as Christians. A recent study showed 53,000 people a week are leaving the back door of America's churches in frustration. What is going on? Why has there not been even a 1% gain among followers of Christ in the last 25 years?

Could it be that God is seeking to restore first-century Christianity for the 21st century? Jesus said, "I'll build my church." Is Christ by His spirit stirring to prepare the church for the 21st century? The early church prayed together and broke bread from house to house. They were family, and it was said by all who observed, "Behold how they love one another." Incredible.

But the same can be found right now. Go to saveus.org and click Cell Church. We can revive first-century Christianity for the 21st century. It's about people, not programs. It's about a body, not a building. That's saveus.org. Click Cell Church.

Chuck Crismier: Does Iran look like the real winner? According to this article it does. The temporary nature of this pause, the ceasefire, its mediated character, and the striking divergence in how its meaning is understood all indicate that this is not the end of a war but a breathing space with an unfinished conflict whose core political contradictions remain unresolved. Notice the words "core political contradictions."

The reality is this is framed politically, but fundamentally, friends, this is not political at all. It's spiritual. If we don't understand that, we miss the point. The article goes on to say: "But war cannot be measured simply by the number of destroyed targets. In the end, war is judged by whether forces achieved the political outcome for which it was launched—that is, if it was political."

In this instance, I don't believe it is political fundamentally; it only has political implications. It's fundamentally spiritual. Iran, by contrast, responded not only militarily but politically and psychologically. External pressures on this scale almost always produce a double effect. It heightens fear, exhaustion, and anger, yet it can also sharply strengthen a sense of historical community, especially when society perceives events not as pressure on a government alone, but as an attack on the country itself, on its sovereignty and on its right to independent existence.

That's precisely what appears to have happened here. And I'm going to phrase it differently: an attack on Islam. When the people see it not as an attack on Khomeini and that dictatorial system, but begin to see it as an attack on Allah or Islam, now you have a whole different ballgame that you're dealing with because viewpoint has changed. Fostered internal consolidation, mass mobilization, and strengthened conviction that national survival itself was at stake.

This is one of the most important reasons now why Iran appears in the eyes of many external observers as the winner of the current phase of the war. I understand that. Believe me, I understand that. I also understand and could understand trying to get inside the mind of Donald Trump and those around him that, look, if we're the ones that have the greater strength, then why not do everything that we can?

We have put such intense pressure on Iran that surely, surely they will come around and there'll be some reason there among those people, no matter what their beliefs are, that they will agree to conform to our expectations so that we can bring this to a peaceful end. That's the thinking. Can you negotiate, though, with the devil?

Can you negotiate as a Christian, for instance, can you negotiate with the cross of Christ with the sword of Mohammed? Which is basically what you're looking at. Or another way to put it from Israel's viewpoint: can you negotiate between the Torah and the Quran? Is there a place of negotiation between the Torah and the Quran? The answer is no. There is no fundamental place for negotiation. There's no space for negotiation because they're fundamentally in opposition to one another.

And that's the reason why, by the way, Israeli members of parliament are furious over Trump's ceasefire and with Benjamin Netanyahu. They believe that this war should have continued on until Iran and its leaders, whoever was left, cried uncle and were willing to submit to the demands in order to bring about a controllable peace, notwithstanding the fact that Islam continued to rule Iran.

In other words, to get over the rulership of fundamentalist Islam in the hearts of the leaders and somehow get back to a more peaceful expression of Islam so that the people of Iran could get along without being under a radical dictator such as Khomeini and his henchmen. So that's where we are. And I'm using this, you say, "Well, where do we end up?" Well, we're heading there.

So it's interesting that the Russian Times had an editorial piece—I say editorial, I think I don't know if it was an editorial piece, it was a column—called "The Iran War is a Political Project from the Torah." And this is really getting down now to the heart of the matter. Now I'm going to try to distill this because I understand exactly what they were saying. In the Bible, if you were to find out how God looks at evil in a war situation, how God looks at evil—when the children of Israel were coming out of Egypt, they were attacked from behind by a group of people called Amalek, the Amalekites.

God said their attack was evil. Why? Because He had called His people out. Amalek had absolutely no reason whatsoever to do what they did. It was a pure act of evil against a people that God had chosen to bless. He'd just delivered them from the despotic rule of Pharaoh, representing antichrist. And now they're attacked by Satan's emissaries called the Amalekites.

And God said this is so evil, I am decreeing once and for all the total destruction and eradication of the Amalekites, of Amalek. Now Amalek is the name of the founder of a nation of people by that name. And God said to Israel, "Don't forget what Amalek did to you. You are to wipe the name of Amalek from off the earth. Don't forget it." That's what God said.

Now, please understand. King Saul, the first king of Israel, was told again by God to wipe out the Amalekites, including everyone. Israel had not yet done that. And Saul did except he saved some of the animals, which he said was to sacrifice to God, and he saved the king of the Amalekites called Agag. God said, "What in the world have you done?"

And because of that act, which God considered evil on the part of King Saul, defying God's instructions, God took His Holy Spirit away from King Saul and ultimately raised up David to serve on the throne of Israel. Do you know that from that one king, just the one person that King Saul saved of the Amalekites that God had said you shall utterly destroy them—out of that one king came several hundred years later a man in Persia, known as Iran today, who conspired together against the Jewish people to have every one of them exterminated in one day?

And out of that came the book of Esther. Esther uncovered that effort. Evil when we don't do what God says, evil multiplies and it will have its way. Another group are the Edomites. The Edomites were the descendants of Esau. And Esau sacrificed his birthright, sold his birthright for a mess of stew. In other words, he gave something precious up for that which is very temporal.

God despised it. He said it was evil. He considered it evil, and therefore He said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." And He actually ordered the ultimate destruction of the Edomites, the descendants of Esau. God did that because He saw what happened was evil. The whole book of Obadiah is dedicated to that issue. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil. To hate evil.

Now here's our problem. In today's world, we should hate evil, we don't hate people. As Christians, we are not determined, called to eradicate all evildoers. We're told not to associate with evildoers, not to play footsie with evildoers, but not to get rid of all evildoers because they're going to continue to be there. Otherwise, we would have to get rid of all Muslims, we would have to get rid of all Hindus, because they're all pagan.

No. The weeds and tares have to rise up together. In the meantime, we do the best that we can to preserve peace in the name of Christ, in the name of Yeshua. But ultimately there will be no peace. Men will cry peace, peace, but there will be no peace ultimately until the Prince of Peace comes to rule and reign.

The question is whether you'll have peace in your own mind and heart because, quite frankly, the majority of us are all in a raging battle just like Iran is with the US or with Israel. A raging battle on whether we will live righteously and hate evil or whether we will succumb to Satan's temptations. To help you deal with that issue, I urge you to get a copy of my book, *Seduction of the Saints: How to Stay Pure in a World of Deception*.

We're living in that kind of world today, in a world of deception. $15 will put that $18 book in your hands. It's on our website, saveus.org. Give us a call at 1-800-SAVE-USA. Write to us at six dollars for postage and handling. *Seduction of the Saints*. It deals with so many kinds of issues that Satan uses them to seduce us to compromise and negotiate with evil. You cannot negotiate ultimately with evil successfully. You can't.

Now, we have a situation right now in America where we have a law to protect our borders. On the other hand, we have some Iranian Christians that have fled to the United States for asylum because they're under a death penalty in Iran. Do you know that these Iranian Christians have been arrested by customs enforcement and are getting ready to be deported?

And the cry is: which is right? Christians have an important role to play in this call to people to a higher standard. Yes, protect the border, but the most important thing is to protect righteousness. In other words, protect these who are true followers of Jesus Christ who have come to this country for asylum and not play the ultimate legal game.

There's a greater sense of justice at play. Justice isn't just punishment; justice is a biblical lens for a Christian lens in doing what is right, true, and best. I hope this has been helpful to you here today. A lot of talk. You can't negotiate with evil. God bless you, Viewpoint.

Guest (Male): You've been listening to Viewpoint with Chuck Crismier. Viewpoint is supported by the faithful gifts of our listeners. Let me urge you to become a partner with Chuck as a voice to the church, declaring vision for the nation. Join us again next time on Viewpoint as we confront the issues of America's heart and home.