Both groups are essentially saying the same thing. Either....
OSAS - you have faith and works to the end or you never were saved. Bottom line is that without works you go to hell
Or Conditional Security - you have faith and works to the end or you lose your salvation. Bottom line is that without works you go to hell.
Same error, different package
Actually that is quite in error.
Faith and works are not relevant to salvation primarily because we would have to attribute to man the possibility that he could of himself create a condition in which his faith brought about said salvation.
The truth is that salvation is initiated by God through the ministry of the Spirit in the heart of men. In this Age, we see the sequence of events as being God enlightens the hearts of men to the truth, and in this way creates the response men have. Whether that response is rejection or reception, neither would be relevant to the natural man, who has no possible means of understanding his condition.
For example, James, I could wait about two months, come back here, find you in a thread, and insult you. You would have a response, which might be anger, or, you might actually agree with me, and your reaction is one of agreement. Would you have had a reaction if I didn't do it? Even in this post, you are going to have a reaction, Generally, we don't like someone saying something like "Actually that is quite in error," right?
What is your reaction? Would you have had it if I had logged off before making this post? Can you say, "I decided to get angry," or, "I decided to agree?" The answer is no, there would have been no reaction before my intervention, or...butting in, you decide.
But the analogy fails in a context dealing with the natural man, who is dead to the spiritual things of God. We might just as easily impose an ability to a German Shepherd to have an opinion on abortion as we would in imposing an understanding of man's condition apart from the enlightening ministry of God.
And we see yet another error in your statement in this: you are imposing the conditions of your assertion as relevant to works themselves. Nowhere in Scripture is there a general statement that all believers will have works and faith to the end, but the opposite, there is warning of being diligent in these areas of our walk so that we do not, for example, make shipwreck of our faith. Scripture teaches God will judge sin in our lies, which if severe enough, may result in physical death.
But nowhere do we see that He returns us to a natural condition.
Peter gives the illustration that the pig is still a pig, though washed, and the dog returns to his vomit again. The point? No change.
Now what OSAS does teach is that if one does reject Christ after professing to have faith, or if one does not evidence faith by their works, it is questionable that they were ever saved. But for me, as a firm OSAS advocate, I take the position that sometimes, perhaps, that person is simply one in need of restoration.
So your assertion requires quite a few assumptions, and imposition of premise which is not entirely relevant to OSAS, or how it is taught by differing people. Sure, some new believers might get the impression that Eternal Security is a license for sin, but it is doubtful that you will ever quote the first endorser or teacher of OSAS actually saying that. It is an argument which is falsely attributed to those who embrace Eternal Security.
Now, however you decide to respond to this, again I ask you, who created the response, me...or you? Secondly, when men are saved, who created their response? Who created the response of the rejecter? THey wouldn't be objecting if they were not first privy to what it is they are rejecting, right?
Okay, hope to see you guys before too much time passes, I will check back in at the appointed time.
God bless.
).