“Once saved always saved” is basically “I’m a good person” but repackaged
After seeing many arguments for and against the teaching of Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS), I’ve come to the conclusion that it can quickly devolve into another form of works-based salvation, the very thing its proponents often criticize.
Take Caleb Flynn, for example. He committed adultery, which resulted in the murder of his wife. Many people argue that he was never truly saved, let alone a Christian, in the first place. But how much of that judgment stems from the fact that they themselves don’t currently struggle with adultery or thoughts of murder? What if they did? Would they apply the same standard to themselves? Would they conclude that their sins proved they themselves were never saved in the first place?
Some people go so far as to argue that, apart from apostasy, nothing can cause us to lose our salvation. But how is this fundamentally different from someone saying, “I’m a good person. I don’t commit X, Y or Z sins, so I’ll go to heaven”? I know the difference is in the OSAS case they say they have faith and trust in Christ and God sustains them from falling away or committing those egregious sins, but why would you let certain sins pass but not other sins, saying those would prove you were never Christian to begin with?
P.S. I know many Protestants don’t believe in OSAS, which is why I want to hear what you guys think.