OSAS: Over Simplifying Assured Salvation

One of the biggest obstacles to increasing in wisdom is the inability to increase in what one considers "folly". As Christians, we understand that "...the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18). And yet, we expect those who are perishing to indulge us. While they see our faith as folly, we rightly regard them as the foolish ones when they run around babbling about the "sky daddy", the "cosmic Jewish zombie", and the many other ways they oversimplify our faith in order to make it seem more absurd than it actually is. If they would stop mocking us for a reasonable amount of time and try to understand what we actually believe, they might actually learn something. Many of them do, and as a result, they often realise that what they once mocked is actually true. But most of them never do, because they won't entertain the possibility that a belief other than their own may have merit.

This, sadly, is not a problem limited to the unbeliever. Within the faith, there are disputes ranging from the major to the minor. And just as unbelievers mock the message of the cross, believers mock even the most sound of doctrine. With their personal doctrine so thoroughly established in their mind, they oversimplify everything else in order to make it seem more absurd than it actually is.

"OSAS" is one such oversimplification. This acronym expands to "Once Saved, Always Saved", which basically means Christians cannot lose our salvation. This fact is thoroughly Biblical, so much so that I dare say it is nigh irrefutable, if not outright indisputable. Nevertheless, many Christians do dare to dispute it.

Yet, the very use of the term "OSAS" is strong evidence that they have made no attempt to understand the issue before expressing their opinion (Proverbs 18:2). See, OSAS is neither an official, nor historic term. In fact, it is no term at all. Claims that "OSAS is unbiblical" vastly outnumber claims that "OSAS is Biblical". This is because "OSAS" is formally, and more commonly known by two other, far more realistic names: "Eternal Security", and "the Perseverance of the Saints".

Just as the Trinity may be summed up sloppily, but accurately, as "God is 3 in 1", so also can Eternal Security be sloppily, but accurately, summed up as "once saved, always saved". Yet, just as "God is 3 in 1" does not mean He is an everlasting shampoo bottle, "once saved, always saved" does not mean one can simply pray the sinner's prayer, then go off and live like Hell and still expect to walk into Heaven.

There are three main, Biblically established premises in Eternal Security:

1. Salvation is by grace, through faith

2. God is omniscient

3. The Holy Spirit seals the believer

The first premise is literally the Gospel, and is easily proven by Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." If the criteria for receiving the gift of salvation is faith, then the only way to lose salvation would be to lose faith. All true Christians, whether we believe in Eternal Security or Conditional Security, will acknowledge this. This means there is a point where our beliefs become functionally identical. We both believe, ultimately, that those who have faith are saved, those who do not are not. Thus, the only real dispute is whether or not those who lost faith ever had salvation to lose?

While our answers are functionally the same "on this side", there is a difference from the perspective of eternity. Or, more accurately, from the perspective of the eternal God. Unless you accept the heresy of Open Theism*, you have to understand that apostasy never takes God by surprise. If a person loses faith, He knew it was going to happen before it happened.

*Open Theism: the belief that God knows all things "that can be known", but the future choices of free agents cannot be known even by God.

We see this with Judas. The Bible consistently treats him as a legitimate Apostle, with no functional difference between him and the rest of the 12. He was chosen, just as the 12. He was given power and authority, just as the 12. He wielded that power and authority, just as the 12. Jesus washed his feet, just as the 12. So on and so forth. As far as discipleship goes, he was a follower of Christ, as much as the other Apostles. But there is one key difference. "...Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (John 6:70). As a result, "...none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17:12).

There was never a point, from the time He chose Judas, to the time Judas' suicide sealed his eternal fate, when Judas' eventual apostasy was unknown to Christ. It wasn't even a potential betrayal. It wasn't a case of "Judas could betray me, but it could as easily be Bartholomew", nor was it a case of "one of these guys could betray me, but I'm not sure if it will happen". From the very beginning, Jesus foresaw, and even foretold of Judas' apostasy, as clearly as He foresaw that none of the other Apostles would slip away.

But John takes this a step further. Not only does God foresee apostasy, but His word actually tells us that apostates "...went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." (1 John 2:19, emphasis added).

Let's apply this verse to Judas as our example. He:

• "went out from us" (because he was a "Christian", and indeed was a hand chosen Apostle of Christ).

• But he was "not of us" (because, as Christ said, he was a devil).

• For if he had been of us (if he had been a Christian in his heart)

• He would have continued with us (he may have denied, like Peter, but would have been as easily restored).

• But he went out (he apostatised)

• that he might be made manifest, that he was not of us.

Notice how John uses paradoxical terminology in this verse. He simultaneously speaks as though the apostate was with us, and was not with us, at the same time. But the difference here is sense. John makes his criteria clear: none of them were of us, and that is what their apostasy is designed to prove. If they were of us, they would have continued with us. Thus, they were "with us" in the sense that they identified with us externally, but they were not with us in the sense that their faith was false.

This is unbelievably black and white! If it was not literally built into our religion, it would be at least bordering upon the no true Scotsman fallacy. It's very simple: The saved can't apostatise, and apostates weren't saved. They left that this might be made manifest. Judas? He was a devil from the start. Paul? He thoroughly placed himself in the category of those who will not draw back to perdition, but believes to the saving of the soul (Hebrews 10:36-39).

But why this level of confidence? Why is John, or more accurately the Holy Spirit speaking through John, so confident that those who go out from us were never truly of us? It's fairly simple: Because God knows His own power.

3 times in Scripture, we are promised the seal of the Holy Spirit. That seal is not meaningless. He is a guarantee (2 Corinthians 1:22), He is the Holy Spirit of promise (Ephesians 1:13), and we are sealed to the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30). Now, if we were dealing with an idol, or even a man, this wouldn't be especially comforting. But we're not dealing with flesh and blood, nor even with angelic beings. We're dealing with YAHWEH, who opens what no one can shut, and shuts what no one can open. Men can offer hopes, and angels can deliver dreams, but God when God makes a promise, that is a guarantee. That makes the seal of the Holy Spirit a rather big deal.

This is where proponents of Conditional Security start bringing up the claim that God does not interfere with free will. This is partially true. God gives us the ability to defy sin (1 Corinthians 10:13), and so if we, as believers, continue to sin (and we do), this proves indisputably that He does not force Himself upon us. Nevertheless, He promises He is able to keep us from stumbling, and to present us blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy (Jude 1:24).

Just as the seal of the Holy Spirit is not a joke, so also is the ability to keep us from stumbling and present us blameless more than just an empty promise. Free will is, in a sense, not in play here. It hasn't been entirely removed from the board, but rest assured there are goads against which it is hard to kick (Acts 26:14).

But then how do we factor free will into this? The answer is fairly simple. In fact, it has been made far more simple by the fact Christ has given us the answers. In Matthew 13:1-9, we find the parable of the sower, and in verses 18-23, He explains it. “Therefore hear the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”"

Notice how in the parable, there are two kinds of ground that initially produce a crop. The stony ground, and the thorns, both allow a temporary receipt of the word, but something takes it away again. Tribulation, persecution, cares of the world, and deceitful riches, all rob the word from the heart of a man.

Now, notice how the parable treats these things as though they were always there. Do tribulations, persecutions, worldly cares, and deceitful riches, not affect all Christians? Does Scripture not warn us "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted," (2 Timothy 3:12)? If this is the case, then the ground cannot represent the external environment. Rather, it represents the person themselves.

In short, those who "went out from us" in order to make it manifest that "none of them were of us" did freely leave. Similarly, we who endure to the end - and we will endure to the end - freely stay, by the grace of the one who keeps us. Why? Because of the type of ground we are.

Salvation is by grace, through faith, not of works. This means the only way to lose salvation is to lose faith. But the loss of faith does not surprise God, He knows from the beginning who will, and who will not apostatise. Thus, He knows to whom salvation should and should not be dispensed. This confidence comes, in large part, from His own power. When He gives salvation, He does not revoke it. Rather, He goads the believer, so much so that while we may deviate from His path, He brings us back. To assert that apostates prove salvation can be lost is to simultaneously deny very clear Scriptures to the contrary, and to insist that there is no such thing as a false convert. Look me in the eye and tell me you believe 100% of those currently calling themselves Christians actually are. Is there no one you know, or even know of, who, if they were to die with their current profession of faith, you would not fear for? At this point, you may as well believe "once saved, always saved", because you now believe the mere external confession of faith is as powerful as the kind of internalisation thereof.

When we understand everything stated above, we see that "OSAS", while objectively true, is an extreme oversimplification, made only by those who have neither desire, nor intention, to pursue the truth of the matter. When the truth of the matter is pursued, there are only two options for you. The first is that you believe the Gospel, but miss the nuance; you wrongly assume God gives salvation to those whom He knows will lose it. The second is that you do not believe the Gospel, believing a criteria other than faith. In this case, you also do not have salvation to lose. But it is available to gain. Receive, by faith, that which can only be received by faith.

AI usage

AI was used to create the header image.