Islam was Banned from the USA in 1952 but You’re Not Supposed to Know It!

ISLAM WAS BANNED FROM THE USA IN 1952 but Obama doesn’t want you to know that, nor does he respect or uphold US law.

The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization and nationality for the United States.

That Act, which became PUBLIC Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of aliens to the US and remains in effect today.

Among the many issues it covers, one in particular found in Chapter 2, Section 212, is the prohibition of entry in to the US if the alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by force, violence or by other unconstitutional MEANS.”

This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States but this law is being ignored by the White House.

Islamic immigration to the United States would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam which is antithetical to the United States GOVERNMENT, the Constitution and to the Republic.

All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government.

Now the politically correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the United States because Islam is a ‘religion.’

WHETHER it is a ‘religion’ is immaterial because the law states that aliens who are affiliated with any organization that advocates the overthrow of our GOVERNMENT are prohibited.

Public Law 414 – June 27, 1952


by Kevin Cannon, We the People Alabama, ©2015

The text of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act is on the website of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

(Dec. 8, 2015) — The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House.

The law prohibits entry of “Aliens who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.” It also prohibits the entry of Aliens who are members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the US or of all forms of law, and Aliens who publish, circulate and distribute materials teaching or advocating the overthrow by force, violence or other unconstitutional means of the US Government or of all forms of law.

Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principle subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government. Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited. It also prohibits those who distribute literature that advocates the overthrow of our country, which would include the Koran.

In fact, there are many verses in the Koran that command Islamists to kill those who do not submit to allah and the prophet. If Congress so desired to hold the White House accountable to the current immigration of refugees (which also must comply with the law), it has the Immigration and Nationality Act to cite. The Administration is breaking that law. The question is “Does Congress have the political will to do something about it?”

To read the law, go to this link and scroll down to Chapter 2, Section 212: This link will take you the government printing office and the official law. I had to click on it twice to connect to it, it is real it is the law.

Time to drain the swamp!  



There is no Grace without Law.

Beware all purveyors of “Situational ethics.” This book confronts current wide spread lies of lawlessness preached weekly by popular modern-day preachers; “love is all the world needs!” These preachers offer an unbiblical prevailing and accepted message that ever so beautifully pontificates the lies of lawlessness that Jesus and Paul warned us to avoid.

a storm

“The fundamental truth: That there is no grace without law. Only when we understand God’s loving restrictions can we fully experience His freedom.”   That quote out to fire up a storm. That is what Pastor Cary k. Gordon writes about in his book entitled: A Storm a Message a Bottle A road map to American Redemption.

All forms of government—from the family to the federal level—need to be viewed through the lens of God’s natural law.

Cutting through the foggy thinking about law and liberty, Pastor Cary Gordon carefully examines what the Bible really means by grace. He explains how a proper understanding of the ways in which the old and new covenants intertwine fueled the explosive growth of the early church.

Rediscovering that foundation can bring about a similar impact in today’s world.


I am currently reading this awesome book–it has a lot to say that speaks volumes of truth. I highly recommend it.



Teach the controversy

Two years after Intelligent Design advocates lost a key court battle, some biology classrooms and ID supporters are finding a balanced approach to evolution that-so far-is lawsuit-proof


Posted July 21, 2007, 12:00 a.m.

For 15 years Doug Cowan has taught the scientific evidence for and against Darwinism to biology students at Curtis High, a large public school several miles southwest of Tacoma, Wash. Over that time, the popular teacher and athletic coach has drawn periodic criticisms from community activists and local media. But he has faced no lawsuits and never worried over losing his job.Evolution

Students in Cowan’s classes praise his balanced presentation. And parents rarely, if ever, raise objections. “I haven’t heard a thing,” he told WORLD. “Kids think it’s really neat that I’m allowing them to weigh the evidence from both sides and make their own informed conclusions.”

Throughout the country, many other attempts to teach evolution critically have faced stiff opposition. Educators and school board members have lost legal battles and even their jobs. What makes Cowan so different?

“I don’t teach alternative theories, because that’s not part of the curriculum,” he explained. “There aren’t a whole lot of alternative theories other than design theory, but that’s not in our curriculum. So unless a kid asks specifically about it, I don’t deal with it.”

Instead, Cowan deals more thoroughly with Darwinism than most existing biology textbooks, using resources from outside the standard evolutionary syllabus: Darwin on Trial, Icons of Evolution, Darwin’s Black Box, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Cowan says the ideas he draws from these extra texts engage his students, challenging their ability to analyze and discern truth from competing sides of a controversial issue.

This fall, the 34-year teaching veteran will restructure his evenhanded presentation around a new textbook from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers, 2007) does not address alternative theories of origins but succinctly lays out the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the most critical elements of Darwinism. “It’s made my work a lot easier,” Cowan said.

Explore Evolution encapsulates a “teach the controversy” paradigm that the Discovery Institute has advocated for the better part of the past decade. Over that time, the institute has advised school boards against the inclusion of Intelligent Design in their science standards. Some boards have heeded that counsel; others have not.

In 2005, a now famous board in Dover, Pa., attempted to mandate the inclusion of ID in ninth-grade biology classes. Backed by the ACLU, parents sued and won a landmark decision in which a federal judge ruled that ID was religion, not science. The shockwaves of that decision reverberated nationwide and have quieted other efforts to push ID into schools.

But the Dover lawsuit also highlighted the effectiveness of the Discovery Institute’s approach. State school boards in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Minnesota along with local boards in Wisconsin and Louisiana have adopted science standards that encourage critical analysis of Darwinian Theory. To date, not a single lawsuit has challenged such standards.

“This is an approach that if I were a Darwinist I would be particularly frightened of,” said John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. “The policy that we’ve recommended turns out to be the precise common-ground approach we said it would be. It reduces the decibel level; you don’t get sued; you get good education; and the Darwinists don’t have a leg to stand on.”

In the wake of the Dover ruling, many committed Darwinists declared victory for an uncritical approach to teaching evolution. But, in fact, the ruling has worked to galvanize a previously disjointed movement. Whereas many teachers and school boards might previously have shunned the “teach the controversy” strategy in favor of the more bold step of introducing ID, those groups and individuals are now more willing to listen.

John Calvert, managing director of IDnet, praises Explore Evolution as “enormously important.” Since 2005, his organization has focused its efforts on bringing critical analysis of evolution into classrooms, not ID.

In past years, groups like IDnet might have rallied around another new textbook scheduled for publication this fall: The Design of Life, a rewrite of the ID-advancing classic Of Pandas and People. Like Explore Evolution, this 360-page text presents the scientific weaknesses of Darwinism, but it also goes further in outlining the case for ID. Authors William Dembski and Jonathan Wells lay out such noted design arguments as irreducible complexity and specified complexity.

The Design of Life publisher Jon Buell, president of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, has no illusions of his textbook cracking public-school curriculums in the wake of the Dover ruling. “Our book, we fully expect to be taught in university courses,” he said. “We will not market to public schools.”

Teach the controversy” Continued…


Issue: “When the base cracks,” July 21, 2007
Posted July 21, 2007, 12:00 a.m.

Prior to the Dover case, Of Pandas and People broke into public biology classrooms in 22 states over its two-decade run. Now, Explore Evolution offers the latest real hope for a text critical of Darwin to repeat such success. West told WORLD that one state school board has already expressed interest in using the new textbook, though discussions remain in the preliminary stages.

“We expect a lot of teachers to use it, including public-school teachers, to help them teach evolution better,” he said. “In fact, we already know some of those where the school may not be purchasing 30 copies, but the teacher is using it to build their lesson plan.”

Despite not mentioning ID, Explore Evolution has received sharp criticism from the Discovery Institute’s usual opponents. PZ Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota Morris, and author of the highly popular Darwinist blog Pharyngula, rails against the text as “a dirty, dishonest book in a slick package.”

In a cursory review of the 159-page volume, Myers charges that it fails to represent the case for Darwinism accurately and presents complex subjects superficially: “The biology part is shallow, useless, and often wrong, and the critiques are basically just warmed over creationist arguments.”

Similarly, writers on the influential evolution blog The Panda’s Thumb have dismissed Explore Evolution as a “creationist textbook” that seeks to hide its true enterprise of “religious apologetics.”

Most of the book’s five authors are not unfamiliar with such charges. Stephen Meyer, Scott Minnich, and Paul Nelson are fellows of the Discovery Institute and well-known advocates for ID. Ralph Seelke, a professor of microbiology at the University of Wisconsin-Superior, is an outspoken critic of Darwinism. The fifth contributor, Jonathan Moneymaker, provided technical writing assistance.

Without a Darwinist representative, that panel has drawn predictable questions as to the textbook’s objectivity. How can skeptics of Darwinism be trusted to represent faithfully the strongest evidence for a theory they oppose?

But Explore Evolution does not purport to provide comprehensive outlines of Darwinian arguments, leaving that up to most every other biology textbook on the market. The preface to this new text explains that its summary accounts of the case for Darwinism are meant to recap briefly what students have already learned elsewhere. The focus of the book is to present new information as to why the theory of evolution remains scientifically controversial.

Though supportive, IDnet director Calvert does not share the Discovery Institute’s optimism that this new textbook and the approach it embodies will significantly dent the uncritical Darwinist dogma currently taught in most public schools. In February, he emerged from a long political battle in Kansas where attempts to mandate the critical analysis of evolution fell short.

Opponents of the new Kansas science standards argued that any criticism of Darwinism amounts to thinly veiled ID, which according to the Dover ruling amounts to thinly veiled religion. The state school board agreed, effectively determining that any scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

That blow to the “teach the controversy” approach has left Calvert skeptical: “I don’t think the Discovery Institute’s textbook is going to have any traction until we get the Dover court decision reversed. Until we get a legal decision on our side, things will keep getting worse.”

Doug Cowan disagrees: “The schools want to have critically thinking kids. And you can’t be a critical thinker if you hear only one side of the story.”


Darwin’s Doubt

Darwin’s Doubt, Intelligent Design and Evolution. 51HU+39VlcL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_

All of the modern evidence we have destroys any idea that any simple life can evolve into complex life forms. There is no molecular basis for evolution. There is no fossil evidence for evolution. There is no medical evidence for evolution. Every speck of data shows genetic degradation leading to extinction.

The Evidence That Darwin Could Not Explain

Charles Darwin knew there was a significant event in the history of life that his theory did not explain. In what is known today as the “Cambrian explosion,” many animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record 530 million years ago without apparent ancestors in earlier layers of rock. In Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen C. Meyer tells the story of the mystery surrounding this explosion of animal life and makes a compelling case for the theory of intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the Cambrian animals and the biological information necessary to produce them.

With a new epilogue responding to critics.


The controversy has not ended in spite of solid scientific evidence. The courts ruled in favor of no intelligent design–yet one teacher, Doug Cowan  dares to present an alternative approach being taught in a school that cuts the rug out of another banning of intelligent design and allows students to think and decide for themselves.

As the saying goes: tune in tomorrow for part two.


Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God.

A long overdue enlightenment has come to me from a book written by Dave Hunt. It is entitled “What love is this?” The book takes the teachings of the much beloved John Calvin and its miss representation of the love of God among a whole plethora of absolute unchristian theology.

Calvin has been acclaimed as a godly example who based his theology and actions upon Scripture alone. But much that he did was unbiblical in the extreme, though consistent with his theology. Is not that fact sufficient reason to examine Calvinism carefully from Scripture? Dave Hunt’s book just does that.

French theologian John Calvin attempted over a period of eight years to orchestrate the marriage of Church and State in Geneva, Switzerland. With fiendish determination he set his plan to transform the city into a model of God’s kingdom on earth, Calvin established numerous detailed “reforms” as well as devising a system to police citizens through regular home inspections—questioning the residents on all aspects of their beliefs and practice.

Quotes from historian Will Durant point out some of these un-Christ like “reforms,” for example, “The allowable color and quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal… Jewelry and lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an immoral height (whatever that was) …To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime. A first violation of these ordinances was punished with a reprimand, further violation with fines, persistent violation with imprisonment or banishment. Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning, adultery, blasphemy or idolatry (Oh my, (American idol) with death…a child was beheaded for striking its parents.”

I will skip over for now the burning at the stake of Miguel Servetus: The Arch Heretic. You may find this despicable event on a name search on Google. Again, referring to the “reforms” of Calvin beheading was the penalty for civil crimes burning at the stake was for theological heresy.john-calvin

Gee, why haven’t we seen any burning at the stake of Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons, Wiccans or Witches?

Does any of what has been noted here speak of a Christ like character? Did Jesus teach revenge against one’s enemies or the use of violence in the cause of Christ—much less the death sentence for heresy that was enforced in Calvin’s Geneva. Still today the multitude of Calvinists supporters have swept under the rug Calvin’s un-Christ like conduct.

Is not Christ alone the standard for His disciples? And is He not always the same, unchanged by time or culture (Hebrews 13:8). Can the popes be condemned (and rightly so) for the evil they have done and are doing under the banner of the Cross, while skinny Calvin is excused for doing much the same, though on a smaller scale?

Dave Hunt points out two Scriptures among many that condemn Calvin: But wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy (James 3:17). He that saith he abideth in him (Christ) ought himself also so to walk, even as he (Christ) walked (1 john 2:6).

It is a mystery to me how so many of today’s Christian leaders can continue to praise a man whose behavior was often so far removed from the life of Jesus and the examples of Scripture quoted.

In closing, the book covers the tyrannical kingdom of John Calvin and his experiment in “Christian” Dominionism.

A moment on the lips a lifetime on the hips.

“Pilgrim Poem” ~ Author Unknown                                                  

Many years ago the Pilgrims came.

They sailed on a ship – the Mayflower was its name.

They sailed across the Atlantic blue,

So they could worship the way they wanted to.

Many people died along the way,

And the first winter was hard they say.

The Native Americans were already here.

They helped the Pilgrims plant corn and hunt deer.

They all got together to share food and pray,

And that’s why we celebrate Thanksgiving Day!


“Thank you for the World so sweet” ~ Author Unknown

Thank You God for the world so sweet,

Thank You God for the food we eat,

Thank You God for the birds that sing,

Thank You God for everything!

Blessings to all this holiday season.

On Earth as it is in Heaven

A remarkable thing happened at a planning session for an upcoming healing conference. Ms. Julie Castro announced that her book is being printed and is set to be distributed soon. I have read the foreword and it is exciting; there are forty chapters of experiences given to Julie.  I will bring an update as soon as I can read a copy.


julie final

                     Here is a link to Fiesta Publishing—

Was the Temple Mount Not the Site of Solomon’s Temple?

By Robert Knight

As conflict rages in Gaza, and anti-Semitic riots erupt in European cities, something is happening deep within Jerusalem that could change the course of history.
Israel’s holy city is dominated by the 36-acre Temple Mount, on which sits the Dome of the Rock, or Mosque of Omar, which has occupied the spot since around 692 A.D., following the Muslim conquest in 638 A.D. The building is atop a massive foundation built more than two thousand years ago.
It has been believed since the Crusades about 1,000 years ago that the Temple Mount was the site of Solomon’s Temple, which the Babylonians destroyed in 586 B.C., some lesser temples and finally, Herod’s Temple, which the Roman General Titus destroyed in 70 A.D. jews looking
Part of the Temple Mount structure constitutes the Western Wall, which Jews believe is the sole remaining section of Herod’s Temple.
The problem: The Bible itself in several places clearly says that both temples were erected in the City of David or Zion, which is a far smaller, 12-acre area now being excavated about 600 feet south of the Temple Mount in the City of David Jerusalem Walls National Park.
The implications are enormous, as explained in a new book, Temple, by Robert Cornuke of the Bible Archeology Search and Exploration Institute based in Colorado Springs. Mr. Cornuke, who some describe as the “Christian Indiana Jones,” is an FBI-trained investigator and former SWAT team member who has spent years searching for prominent places in the Bible. In the book’s introduction, he credits Dr. Paul Feinberg for alerting him to “the revolutionary work of the late archeologist and author, Dr. Ernest L. Martin,” an originator of the theory that the Bible points away from the Temple Mount as the site of Israel’s great temples.
A few years ago, following strictly biblical references, Mr. Cornuke also found striking evidence for an alternative Mount Sinai, such as an inexplicably burned up mountain top and 12 stone altars at the mountain’s base. That account is in his book The Search for the Real Mt. Sinai.
His current offering has far greater potential to shake up prophetic Holy Land debates.
Last summer, Mr. Cornuke accompanied Eli Shukron, director of excavations at the City of David, through recently discovered passages buried for centuries. Mr. Cornuke, who is also a novelist, draws a suspenseful, non-fiction narrative as he takes the reader down ancient pathways.
His case for the City of David temple site, at least to this non-archeologist journalist, is quite compelling. Located there is the Gihon Spring, where Solomon was crowned king of Israel and which is the only natural water source big enough to wash away massive blood flows from temple animal sacrifices. There is no such water source up on the Temple Mount, Mr. Cornuke notes.
There is also Hezekiah’s Tunnel, which was discovered in 1880 by some adventurous boys. Second Chronicles 32:30 says that, “This same [King] Hezekiah also stopped the water outlet of Upper Gihon, and brought the water by tunnel to the west side of the City of David.” If several Jewish historians are correct that priests ritually washed in the Gihon Spring before entering the Temple, “why would they then walk almost a quarter mile to the traditional Temple Mount area?” Mr. Cornuke asks, adding, “That discovery in 1880 almost single-handedly blasted to pieces the false understanding of Zion’s placement on the upper city hill area.” LB-TEMPLE-front-cover-238x359
The City of David, Cornuke explains, is the site of Ornan the Jebusite’s threshing floor, which David purchased after defeating the Jebusites and occupying the city. In 2 Chronicles 3:1, it says, “Now Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem … at the place that David had prepared on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.”
There is not space for the many fascinating details, but here’s one more: The massive structure on the Temple Mount over which the Dome of the Rock was built has the hallmarks of a Roman fortress, not a Jewish temple. In Herod’s time, an entire Roman legion was housed in Jerusalem, which meant fortifying a base for 6,000 soldiers and 4,000 support personnel.
It makes no sense that the Romans would build a small fortress beneath a Jewish edifice on the Temple Mount when they could seize the summit. Mr. Cornuke concludes that the Wailing Wall was part of a Roman fortress, not Herod’s Temple. Despite the explosive nature of this claim, Mr. Cornuke told me that no scholar in Israel has yet taken issue with the facts that he has presented.
Why does all this matter? Because it’s the most fought-over real estate in human history, sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims. It’s where Jesus walked, and it contains the Pool of Siloam, where Jesus told a blind man to wash and be healed (John 9: 1-11). The Book of Revelation says the End Times will come when Jews build a new Temple that the anti-Christ will desecrate.
Bottom line: The Dome of the Rock does not have to be removed for a new Temple to rise. This would be a stunning reset of the prophetic clock and might explain why Israel came back into existence after 2,000 years and why the Jewish nation is increasingly isolated in a time of violent Islamist expansion.
It’s enough to make you crack open a Bible and read it for yourself while keeping an eye on the Middle East.

It is amazing to see this type of information coming to light especially in regards to the so-called prophetic websites, blogs.

Judaism Revelation of Moses, or Religion of Men?

I have just finished reading this eye-opening book. I will re-read it again during our dog-days of summer in Arizona. I would like to suggest it as a very interesting book revealing the Religion of Men. I am including a book review.

A Book Review.
Judaism Revelation of Moses, or Religion of Men? judaism revof moses
Author: Philip Neal
About This Book
There are many books on Judaism most of which fall into one of three categories. First, there are those written by rabbis and Jewish scholars designed to educate the non-Jewish public. They enthusiastically portray Judaism as a wonderful religion, always connecting it to the Old Testament. The inexperienced reader is led to believe that Judaism is indeed the legitimate continuation of the religion of Moses and the prophets. The fact that the Talmud is held as superior to the Scriptures is hidden or understated.

Second, there are numerous books on Judaism written by well-intended Christian authors. Unfortunately, these books typically whitewash the entire subject, leaving the reader to erroneously conclude that Judaism is in fact based on the Old Testament and that Judaism is, of all things, the precursor to Christianity. Touting the virtues of the mythical Judeo-Christian brotherhood, the key flaws and aberrations of Judaism are overlooked. After all, from their perspective, if Jews would only accept Jesus, they would be almost … Christian.

Third, there are a few books (also written by Christians ) that deal unnecessarily harsh with Judaism. While they are not anti-Semitic, they do tend to be unbalanced and condemning. We are to judge righteous judgment (John 7:24), but in a spirit of kindness and mercy. Such books typically dredge up as much dirty laundry on the Jews as possible, but fail to offer significant hope for the future of the Jewish people. And none of the books written even from a Christian perspective succeed at getting to the root of the problem with Judaism which is intensely spiritual in nature.

This book is different. It pulls no punches, but it is fair. The historic origins of the religion are examined along with key examples of its modern-day application. How and why did Judaism develop? What were the major influences? What fundamental ideas and circumstances led to the origin and advancement of the so-called oral law and the Jews subsequent abandonment of the Scriptures as the sole authority in human affairs? How does the practice of Judaism differ from the way of life presented in Scripture and what spiritual harm, if any, is done to those who attempt to live by the Talmudic code of law? Importantly, this book examines Judaism from a spiritual perspective, dealing with the foundational causes of the religion. Moreover, this book holds out hope, showing that the Jews will yet fulfill their God-ordained role in the age to come…

Doctrines of Men v. The Word of God.


It is my hope that people who stop by this blog will take the time to read these posts on a subject that is as much a part  of a wide spread smorgasbord of  unscriptural teachings. Between Calvinist’s and Word of Faith and so called Reformed  Christians there are a lot of false teachings.

The somewhat uncertain look of the above gentleman fits much of the Body of Christ. In singling out Calvinism, which is the most prevalent  flavor of the blogosphere as well as Christian book publishers, and the most in your face preachers stuck in their so-called theology.

The saddest part is that folks stop by and hopefully read some if not all of the admittedly lengthly posts that do a great service in answering  the fallacies of Calvinism. But they are the huge silent majority that never post even a short comment. These are serious statements that should draw comments from caring Christians. Is anybody there?

You are welcome to distribute printed copies of this document, or copy and paste this document to distribute via email, as long as the document is unaltered and kept in its entirety (including copyright notices), and is not sold for profit. However, if you wish to post this material on your website or anywhere else online, you must first contact us to get permission. ©2007 by David Servant

 The Five Points of Calvinism Considered

By David Servant


4. Limited Atonement


Finally we come to the L of the TULIP acronym, which stands for Limited Atonement.

Because Calvinists believe that God unconditionally elected before time only certain people to be saved, Calvinists are thus faced with some difficult questions: Why does Scripture say that Jesus died for everyone? and Why would Jesus die for those who are not predestined to be saved, but who are predestined to be damned?

The non-Calvinist has no such questions to wrestle with. Because God wants every person to repent and believe, Jesus died for all, making it possible for anyone who repents and believes in the Lord Jesus to have eternal life through His substitutionary sacrifice. It is just that simple.

The Calvinist solves his dilemma by claiming that Jesus did indeed die for everyone, but that He died in a different way for the elect than for the non-elect. For the elect, Jesus purchased “saving grace,” which results in their being granted everything that was  needed to save them, including Calvinism’s irresistible grace, regeneration, the gifts of repentance and faith, and so on. For the non-elect (those predestined to damnation) Jesus died that they might enjoy only “common grace,” that is, the mercy and blessings that every person enjoys during his life. It is on this basis that Calvinists like Piper interpret Paul’s words that God “is the Savior of all men, especially of believers” (1 Tim. 4:10).

To Piper, Jesus saves all men from the immediate eternal punishment they deserve all during the time they are allotted to live on the earth, but He saves only the elect from eternal punishment after they die (see Piper, p. 14, prgh. 6).

I hardly think, however, that this would make Jesus much of a “savior” to the non- elect, as it would have been better for them to never have been born than that they “enjoy” such a temporal “salvation.” Every second of “common grace” will cost them billions of years in hell where they will be tortured forever. The “common grace” that God extends to those predestined to be eternally damned makes Jesus more of a sadistic, deranged maniac than a savior to them. (What would you think of a person who conceives children with the intention of being kind to them for five years and then torturing them for seventy?)

Thus, the Calvinistic interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:10 is unnatural, forced and far- fetched. A more natural interpretation would be that since Jesus died for all people, He is the Savior of all men, but especially believers, because they receive and enjoy the benefits of the salvation He offers to all men. This interpretation would harmonize much better with Paul’s earlier words in the same epistle, where he wrote, “God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3- 4, emphasis added).

In contrast to the Calvinistic view which says that God offers His saving grace to only a select few, the apostle Paul declared that God offers His saving grace to everyone:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age (Tit. 2:11-12, emphasis added).


Piper’s Arguments


Piper claims that the non-Calvinist view of Christ’s atonement is incompatible with  the doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace, (see p. 13., prgh. 5 through p. 14., prgh. 3), and he is entirely correct, because those two doctrines themselves are erroneous. Piper states that if Christ’s atonement only purchased the potential of salvation for sinners, there is no way anyone could be saved, because people would be left to  overcome their total depravity by their own power and regenerate themselves apart from God’s irresistible grace that was purchased by Christ on the cross. Since I have already shown the grave errors of the Calvinistic doctrines of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace, there is really no need to argue against Piper’s flawed logic here. His logic is built on false doctrines. God doesn’t save people by bestowing on them irresistible grace, and no one needs to overcome Calvinistic total depravity because there is no such thing as total depravity by the Calvinistic definition. No one needs to regenerate himself because regeneration does not precede faith. God regenerates those who believe, as Scripture plainly says.

Furthermore, to imply that non-Calvinists believe that Christ’s atonement only purchases the potential of salvation for sinners is very misleading. Christ’s atonement does much more than that. It purchases for everyone what is necessary for their salvation—forgiveness, regeneration, eternity in heaven, and so on. It does not, however, purchase the forcing of people against their wills to believe in Christ, as that is not God’s desire or His plan. God has given every person a free will because it is His will that each individual exercise the right to believe in Christ or reject Christ. If God wanted robots, He would have created robots. But He didn’t want robots. He wants a family that loves Him. Apart from freedom of the will, love is impossible.

Jesus died for every person’s sins, but that doesn’t automatically mean that everyone will be saved (as Piper erroneously argues would be true if Jesus atoned for everyone’s sins). Every individual must receive salvation by believing in the Lord Jesus. When people believe, then what Christ accomplished for them becomes effectual in their lives. This is the only conclusion we can rightfully draw from Scripture that tells us that Jesus died for everyone’s sins and yet also tells that not everyone will be saved.

Is it true that God extends His saving grace to only a select group of unconditionally elected people? Not according to the apostle John, who believed that Jesus’ atonement

was not limited for the saving of some, but accomplished on behalf of every person in the world: And He Himself [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2, emphasis added).

 The word propitiation means “the appeasement of wrath.” John plainly declared that Jesus appeased the wrath of God, not only for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world. What could be more plain?

In regard to this verse that so obviously contradicts the Calvinistic idea of a limited atonement, Piper attempts to convince us that John must have meant something other  than what he wrote. John must have meant, claims Piper, that Jesus not only appeased God’s wrath on behalf of his little group of Christians, but also for the sins of the rest of the Christians scattered all over the world! (see p. 15, prgh. 7). So, according to Piper, the “whole world” really means “the children of God scattered throughout the whole world” (p. 16, prgh. 4). But that is a forced and unnatural interpretation and a redefinition of terms. Are we really to believe that the Christians to whom John wrote thought that Jesus didn’t atone for the sins of all believers around the world, and that John wrote to correct their misunderstanding? Does Piper think his readers are that stupid? And why doesn’t Piper use the same redefinition of the phrase “whole world” when John uses it later on in the same epistle, in 1 John 5:19? There we read:

We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one (1 John 5:19, emphasis added).

Was John saying that all the other Christians outside his little group were not of God and that they were lying in the power of Satan? The answer is obvious (see also 1 John 4:14).

Piper claims that John couldn’t have meant that Jesus appeased God’s wrath for the sins of the entire world, because “propitiated sins cannot be punished….Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved” (p. 16, prgh. 6). This, of course, is only logical to the Calvinistic mind, because only Calvinists believe that man plays no part in his salvation. All others realize, as Scripture repeatedly teaches, that in order for any person to experience the benefits of salvation that Christ purchased for him on the cross, he must repent and believe. Christ’s atonement becomes effectual for people only when they meet His conditions.

We have already read where Paul wrote to the Romans that the adoption as sons belonged to the Jews (see Rom. 9:4). Using Piper’s logic, we would have to conclude that because sonship belongs to every Jew, then every Jew will become God’s child. But Paul made it clear that every Jew had to believe in Jesus if he was to actually posses his rightful adoption as a son. This principle is so abundantly plain in Scripture that we must wonder why Piper would even attempt to persuade us against it. Only those who have  first bought into the Calvinistic doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace can be fooled by Piper’s conclusion that Christ’s atonement was intended to save only some.


The Testimony of Jesus


Consider the following verses from John’s Gospel, all of which prove that the benefits of Christ’s atonement were not limited to any supposed group of unconditionally elected people, but were available to all who would believe. Except for the first quotation of John the Baptist, all the rest are from Jesus’ own lips: The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29, emphasis added).

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him (John 3:16-17, emphasis added).

For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the

world (John 6:33, emphasis added)

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh (John 6:51, emphasis added).

I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness. And if anyone hears My sayings, and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world (John 12:46-47, emphasis added).

Jesus couldn’t have made His message clearer. He gave His life for the world.

Completely ignoring those passages, however, Piper isolates three passages from the Gospel of John in order to prove that “the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God’s people, not for every individual” (p. 15, prgh. 2).

Piper begins with John 10:15, in which Jesus says, “I lay down my life for the sheep.” Piper claims this verse proves that Jesus only died for the ones God predestined for salvation, the “sheep.” But are we to ignore or nullify the many just-quoted verses from John’s Gospel and exalt this single verse? Or would it be better to believe everything that Jesus said and let scripture interpret scripture, so that we arrive at a biblically-balanced understanding?

Note that Jesus did not say in John 10:15 that He laid His life down exclusively for His sheep. If He did, then He contradicted Himself in the other passages I’ve just quoted from John’s Gospel. In the passage Piper quotes, Jesus is only emphasizing His love for His followers. If Jesus said to you, “I died for you,” would that prove that He died for you  and no one else? Obviously not. Then why should we conclude, as Piper does (see p. 16- 17), that when Scripture sometimes says that Jesus gave His life as a ransom for many, or for the church, that Jesus died only for the elect and not everyone? Consider Piper’s logic in the following quotation from his booklet:

Similarly in Titus 2:14 Paul describes the purpose of Christ’s death like this: “[Jesus] gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquities and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.” If Paul were an Arminian would he not have said, “He gave himself to redeem all men from iniquity and purify all men for himself”? (p. 17, prgh. 2)

Piper is again forcing his interpretation on a text. Why couldn’t the “us” whom Jesus “gave himself for” be “those who have repented and believed”? Why must the “us” be “those individuals whom God has pre-selected for salvation”?

Once again, Piper selects a verse that seems to support his Calvinistic view and   ignores all others that would contradict his view. Simply because Paul wrote in Titus 2:14 that Jesus gave Himself to “redeem us,” rather than to “redeem all,” that supposedly proves that Paul was a Calvinist who believed that Jesus only died for the people God predestined to be saved! Using the same flawed logic, what must Piper conclude from Paul’s words in Galatians 4:4-5? There we read, But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons (emphasis added).

Note that Paul said God sent His Son to redeem “those who were under the Law.” That would mean all Jews and only Jews. Applying the same logic that Piper applies to interpreting Titus 2:14, we would have to conclude that Jesus only died for the Jews. And if we adopt Piper’s previously-mentioned logic (i.e., that “propitiated sins cannot be punished”; see p. 16, prgh. 6), we would also have to conclude that since God sent His Son to redeem those under the Law, then all under the Law must be redeemed, because redeemed people can’t be sent to hell. Thus all Jews are saved! Thus we see the glaring errors and inconsistency of Piper’s pathetic methods of Bible interpretation.

Piper next pulls from their context verses 6, 9 and 19 of John 17, passages from Jesus’ high priestly prayer, a prayer in which Jesus prays that His church might be one in order that the world will believe that God sent His Son (see John 17:21). By isolating specific requests Jesus made for His followers from within this prayer, Piper tries to prove that Jesus didn’t die for the very world that He prays would believe in Him! Amazing!

Piper next quotes John 11:51-52, a passage which tells of how Caiaphas prophesied that “Jesus should die for the nation, and not the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” Piper is truly on a search for needles in the haystack here. In the very same sentence which says that Jesus should die to gather into one the children of God scattered abroad (which Piper claims proves that Jesus didn’t die for everyone), we also read that Jesus should die for the nation of Israel! Piper consistently ignores the majority of scriptures that contradict his doctrine, and focuses only on those that seem to support his doctrine, even if he has to ignore the first half of a sentence and focus solely on the second half of a sentence.

Did Jesus die for everyone that everyone might be saved? What does Scripture say?

Consider the following: All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Is. 53:6, emphasis added).

 The same all who like sheep have gone astray are the same all whose iniquity fell  upon Jesus. Calvinists would quickly endorse the first part of this verse as being supportive of their doctrine of total depravity. All are totally depraved, they would say. However, the Lord caused the iniquity of all those same totally depraved people to fall on Jesus. Why doesn’t Piper conclude from this verse that all will be saved, since the  iniquity of all fell upon Jesus, and “propitiated sins cannot be punished” (Piper, p. 16, prgh. 6)?

For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all (Rom. 11:32, emphasis added).

The same all who are disobedient are the same all to whom God is showing saving mercy.

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf (2 Cor. 5:14-15, emphasis added).

Paul clearly states that Christ died for all, thus he concludes that “all died.” Notice the flow of his logic. The foundation of Paul’s logic is the truth that Christ died for all. From this, Paul concludes that “all died.” That is, the proof that all had died was the fact that Christ died for all. There can be no mistaking Paul here. Christ died for all who were spiritually dead, which is everyone. Paul then declares Christ’s intention in dying for all, that they should repent and “no longer live for themselves, but for Him.” Everyone should do that because Christ died for all, but not all do.

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time (1 Tim. 2:5-6, emphasis added).

But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone (Heb. 2:9, emphasis added).

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (2 Pet. 2:1, emphasis added).

The last-quoted scripture proves that Jesus even paid for the sins of false teachers who will spend eternity in hell. Jesus died for the sins of all people because God wants all people to be saved.

Piper implies that non-Calvinists believe that the cross was only “intended to give all men the opportunity to save themselves” (p. 17, prgh 1). That is, however, a very unfair accusation. No true Arminian believes such nonsense. No person can save himself. We can only respond to the gospel in faith, as God expects us to, using our God-given free wills under the influence of God’s drawing, in order to receive the salvation that Christ has purchased on the cross through His sufferings. That is a far cry from a person “saving himself.”


Piper’s Conclusion


Piper saves his best argument for last, which is nothing more than a twist on the argument he has used throughout his chapter on Limited Atonement. He correctly states that Arminians believe that (1) Christ died for all the sins of all men, and (2) the reason that not all men are saved is because they don’t believe. He then asks his “clincher” question: “But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died?” (p. 18, prgh. 1). If the Arminian answers yes, then according to Piper, that would mean that everyone would be saved, because God would have nothing to hold against anyone, not even their unbelief.

Certainly unbelief is one of the sins for which Jesus died. But what Piper again misses is the obvious fact that what Jesus did for everyone only becomes effectual in the lives of individuals when individuals believe. This couldn’t be more obvious in Scripture. God provided a way for every Israelite to escape His wrath upon Egypt, but the benefit of that salvation that God provided only became effectual in the lives of individual Israelites  who believed God and applied the blood of the lamb to their lintels and door posts. God parted the Red Sea for every Israelite, but the benefit of that salvation only became effectual in the lives of individual Israelites when individuals trusted God and walked across on dry land. God provided manna for all the Israelites, but the benefit of that salvation only became effectual when individual Israelites believed God and gathered what they needed for a day. Many such biblical examples could be cited, all which foreshadowed the salvation that Christ would make available to all people in the world, a salvation that could be enjoyed by everyone who believes.

In conclusion, God is not a monster who creates people in order to take pleasure in torturing them forever! Rather, He is a Great Lover who yearns that all will be saved, and who suffered horribly on the cross to make salvation possible for all! Praise the Lord! All glory to Him!

May I now ask every reader: Did you begin reading this paper as a Calvinist? If so, do you still believe in the doctrines of Calvinism? If you do, then you must be able to refute every bit of logic and Scripture I’ve used in this paper by showing that what I’ve written contradicts Scripture and/or logic. I am still waiting for the very first refutation from a Calvinist. My email address is If you remain a Calvinist and are not able to refute what I’ve written, then you remain a Calvinist from some motivation other than obedience to Christ and His Word. Is it because of pride that you are unable to admit that you have been wrong? Or is it because of fear of what other Calvinists might think if you defect from their doctrinal system? If either is true, then I must ask an even a more searching question: Is Jesus your Lord?

Previous Older Entries