Mitchell McKain at achristianandanatheist.com Pretends to be a Christian

[revivin]

Perseverance is conditional upon the continued endurance in the race of life set before us. In other words, perseverance is conditional in that it is based upon the commitment of the believer. If the believer decides to fall away due to temptation (as did one of the soils in Luke 8 ), then that person has forfeited their inheritance in Christ (i.e., eternal life). Basically they are just cherry picking what they like even if they are logically inconsistent. Of course since I am not Arminian, it is not like I care either way. But guess you could say that I am closer to OSAS Arminian than I am to Arminian in the sense that I refuse both of the extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism and find a different logical solution to the questions involved.

Arminians don't believe in "perseverance of the saints" so it would be inappropriate to use this phrase to describe them. That is Calvinism terminology. At face value one would read "preserving" as relying one's strength to keep oneself saved, but what Calvinists really mean is they are irresistibly persevering. Whereas Christians, i.e. Arminians all whom are OSAS, believe in "preservation of the saints." We are preserved because we gave our lives to the God who keeps. Mitchell admits he has not given his life to this God of the Bible. Luke 8 does not have a believer falling away. All Arminians are OSAS as Arminius said never once did he ever teach a person could lose salvation once saved, so it is important Mitchell stop sinning bearing false witness against him. That would be wrong. Mitchell is really a Remonstrant like all Roman Catholics claiming they can lose salvation, but this is an admittance he refuses to give his life to the God who keeps, and so this proves Mitchell is going to Hell since he relies not on Christ but his self-strength.

[revivin]

In my case, the reason is that I don't believe that salvation depends at all on choosing the right doctrines.

Further evidence providing Mitchell is going to Hell because he admits salvation is not choosing and receiving the gospel that Jesus is God, died on the cross for the sins of the world to give us the free choice, and was resurrected the 3rd day. How very Matt Slick and Calvinist of Mitchell to say.

Are faith and works contrasted as opposites? "By grace are ye saved, through faith;...not of works" (Eph. 2.8-9); "But to him that worketh not, but believeth..." (Rom. 4.5). Christ repeatedly gave such invitations as "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11.28), and "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink" (John 7.37).

[revivin]

OSAS Arminian is a contradiction in terms. 5. Fall from Grace: The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.

All in all, I think it is clear that I am closer to Arminian than to Calvinist, but that I am not either of these really. I would change the spectrum by making open theism a third point of a triangle and then I would be closer to that than either of these other two.

Jacob Arminius said never once did he ever say a person could lose salvation once saved. The 5th point of falling from grace and losing salvation is the teaching of non-OSASers and Remonstrants and Roman Catholics, the great harlot of religious Rome (Rev. 17).

Mitchell keeps showing he is not a Christian. OSAS Arminian is not a contradiction, for to give your life to the God who keeps is much different than giving your life to God who doesn't necessarily keep/with the option to leave (non-OSASer). Then there is Calvinism that teaches you didn't even receive the free choice to get saved in the first place, and just as you are forced into it or denied it irresistibly, you remain that way like a robot.

It's not a matter of being closer or father away from OSAS Arminian or Calvinism. They are opposite sides of the spectrum so you are either or.

Open theists teach God is not all knowing. Since Mitchell admits he is an Open Theist, that tells me he rejects the God who is all knowing.

[revivin]

Human free will: No. I reject this.

God provides sufficient grace to us all to have the free choice. That's why He can say to us...

"If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it" (Isaiah 1.19-20). If a person couldn't offer would not God have said so? That is sort of an important point to leave out. See Lev. 22.18; 23.38; Numb. 15.3; Deut. 12.6; 2 Chron. 31.14; Ps. 119.108.

[revivin]

Conditional Election: No. I reject this.

God elects by foreknowing our free choice. Whoever repents and comes to the cross is elected in God's eyes. Mitchell prefers Calvinism's unconditional election where a person is saved by irresistible grace; that is, forced into salvation or perdition with no free choice.

[revivin]

Claim of evidence for God, which I refuted to say that we do have evidence. We know that there are events which occur where what happens has no cause within the premises of the scientific worldview and thus no cause which is in any way demonstrable. This includes the appearance of virtual particle pair from nothing as long as they then disappear back into nothing quickly enough.

Romans 1.20 says we are without excuse because nature proves God's existence. So Mitchell worships a false god of blind faith, whereas God of the Bible wants us to receive Him by the evidence.

Just because you are not smart enough to know the cause to some things is no reason to believe something comes from nothing. That would be the height of arrogance!

There are no scientists who are Christians or monotheists who claim something comes from nothing as atheists do. Mitchell is defending the faith of atheists.