Conditional Eternal Security or Conditional Salvation Security

Some years ago, Charles Stanley had the following illustration on his website.

A man accepts Jesus as his savior and faithfully serves the Lord. After two years, he converts to Islam and works against christianity the rest of his life. Will that man go to heaven when he dies?

To discuss this, let's treat the various versions of eternal secutity as follows:

1. Unconditional Eternal security (UES) - The man will go to heaven because the gift of salvation is eternal regardless of the man's later desires, i.e. once saved always saved (This was Charles Stanley's position).

2. Conditional Eternal Security (CES) - The man will not go to heaven because he later chose by his Free Will to stop trusting Jesus as savior thereby giving back his free gift of salvation.

3. Conditional Salvation Security (CSS) - The man will not go to heaven because he must not have been really saved, he just thought he was. Otherwise, once saved always saved would not be true. (Many apply the SBC Faith and Message position to support this belief).

Note that both UES and CSS say once saved always saved, but they mean different things. While CES does not believe once saved always saved.

Note that both CES and CSS believe you must be trusting Christ as savior when you die to get to heaven. While UES says it is not necessay to be trusting Christ as savior to get to heaven.

IMHO, CES and CSS believe the same thing from a practical point of view, i.e. you must be trusting Christ as savior when you die to go to heaven. Their difference is primarily a "play on words". On the other hand, the UES belief is basically different in that you do not have to be trusting Christ when you die to get to heaven.

For those who use the CSS position to defend eternal security. How do you know that you are not one of those who is not really saved, but just believes he is? Since salvation can be conditional on continuing to trust Christ until you die, You will not know for sure until death.

Comments are welcome. On other threads, some comment by presenting a list of scripture which is responded to by another list of scripture from the other position. Let's include discussion in our comments.

In believing Conditional Eternal Security or Conditional Salvation Security the burden of maintaining salvation is placed on the individual and/or their behavior.
In believing Unconditional Eternal Security the individual is placing his trust and the keeping of their salvation in the hands of Almighty God.
There is a big difference and you have at this time choice, so take your pick, which is it reasonable to assume is more capable of maintaining or keep the individual salvation? Almighty God or puny little man.

If a man is born again, he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9) who is faithful to complete the work begun (Phil. 1:6) which is to transform the person who is now an adopted child of God (John 1:12-13)into the likeness of Christ (Romans 8:28-30). Nothing that person does or anything done to that person will separate him from Christ (Romans 8:31-39) for the believer who has been born again is His sheep (John 10) and He will not lose one (John 6:39).

The man, in short, will not 'convert' to any other religion. He knows his Shepherd and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit who WILL finish the good work begun in him. The born again person has a new heart and a new set of desires -- desires for the Lord and not in rebellion against him. So Stanley's scenario is impossible for a person who is born again in Jesus Christ.

In addition, if one is 'secure' there is nothing 'conditional' about it, or it is not security!

I also have a similar hypothetical question:

If a man is walking along and then he decides to turn into a bird and starts to flaps his arms and flies to the moon, is he then a bird or an astronaut?

The basic premise and question are similarly ridiculous as is Mr. Stanley's.

drfuss, you asked:

To discuss this, let's treat the various versions of eternal secutity as follows:

Click to expand...

I have a better idea. How about starting with a true premise instead of an impossible one. No true born again believe would ever "convert" to Islam and work against Christianity the rest of his life.

Mima writes:
"In believing Conditional Eternal Security or Conditional Salvation Security the burden of maintaining salvation is placed on the individual and/or their behavior."

Salvation depends only on trusting in Christ as our only savior. Behavior has nothing to do with it. Why do you think maintaining salvation is a burden?

Mima:
"In believing Unconditional Eternal Security the individual is placing his trust and the keeping of their salvation in the hands of Almighty God."

So does conditional eternal security. As long as we continue to trust Christ as savior, our salvation is secure. It is when we choose to trust in someting else that we can give back the gift of salvation. God does not force himself on us after we accept Him as savior if we change our belief.

Helen writes
"The man, in short, will not 'convert' to any other religion. He knows his Shepherd and is indwelt by the Holy Spirit who WILL finish the good work begun in him. The born again person has a new heart and a new set of desires -- desires for the Lord and not in rebellion against him. So Stanley's scenario is impossible for a person who is born again in Jesus Christ."

Then Helen agrees with Conditional Salvation Security - Anyone who believes he is a saved and later stops trusting Christ as savior really wasn't saved, but only thought he was. Note that more Baptist church menbers convert to the mormon religion than any other. Baptist church members are supposed to be already trusting Christ as savior.

Originally posted by drfuss:
Some years ago, Charles Stanley had the following illustration on his website.

A man accepts Jesus as his savior and faithfully serves the Lord.

Click to expand...

Given the remainder of the OP, perhaps the question should be: Did Jesus Christ accept the man. Recall that Jesus Christ Himself said: For many are called, but few are chosen.[Matthew 22:14]

drfuss, consider what is written that 'they went out from us but they were not of us.'

There are many, I think, who think they are Christians because they 'serve the Lord' and figure God appreciates that. They are playing religion but they are not born again. Any one of these people who are not actually born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit can end up transferring to any other religion they like -- because no matter which religion they follow, they will still be trying to please God with their works.

Stanley has, in short, presented a false dilemma. A born again Christian IS indwelt by the Holy Spirit. And that's that. A new heart is a heart for Christ and will not do more than wander a bit and get brought back by the Shepherd and disciplined. But if a person is His, he or she is His, and He keeps His own safe.

Originally posted by JackRUS:
I have a better idea. How about starting with a true premise instead of an impossible one. No true born again believe would ever "convert" to Islam and work against Christianity the rest of his life.

Click to expand...

Funny that Charles Stanley would use that example.

I know someone personally who claimed she was a Christian for years. Then when she got herself into a lot of trouble and felt like she had to flee the country, she decided she hated Christianity and converted to Islam to run away and marry a Muslim overseas (a suspected terrorist no less).

I think this is a clear case of someone who would convert to Uncle Ben's rice if there were something in it for her at the moment.

Helen writes:
"There are many, I think, who think they are Christians because they 'serve the Lord' and figure God appreciates that. They are playing religion but they are not born again. Any one of these people who are not actually born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit can end up transferring to any other religion they like -- because no matter which religion they follow, they will still be trying to please God with their works."

My orginal post said:
"IMHO, CES and CSS believe the same thing from a practical point of view, i.e. you must be trusting Christ as savior when you die to go to heaven. Their difference is primarily a "play on words". On the other hand, the UES belief is basically different in that you do not have to be trusting Christ when you die to get to heaven."

For practical purposes, the essential beliefs of CES and CSS are basically the same. To get to heaven, a person must be trusting Christ as savior when he dies. CES says he was born again and CSS says he wasn't really born again, he just thought he was. The CSS position is the position you are taking.

People who believe any of the three versions (UES, CES & CSS) are secure in their salvation. There is no burden of maintaining your salvation (as Mima suggests) in any of them. Continuing to trust in Christ means you are eternally secure for all three. The difference comes up when we see someone who claims to be born again and their life shows evidence of being a christian, then change their belief to something else.

The trouble with these debates is that people tend to go to the extreme to make their point. For instance, those who don't believe in CES imply that the CES people don't believe that their salvation is secure, such as "the burden of maintaining your salvation". Of course the salvation of the CES people is secure because they continue to trust in Christ.

The beliefs of the CES & CSS are the same from a practical point of view. The differences are primarily just a play on words, but are amplified by the debate.

Friends,

Why is it "impossible for those who were once
enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly
gift, and made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
if they should fall away, to renew them again
unto repentance"? Heb.6:4,6.

Could it be true that Hebrews shows the impossibility of "falling away"?

This seems to be true since being "enlightened"
occurs in the passive voice to reveal it is
God who took the initiative to begin with.

Having "tasted" is in the middle voice showing
that one may respond to God's initiative.

The emphasis is not on one's ability to choose; but on the impossible supposition that one having been saved totally by God's initiative
and gift of salvation could (or even might) fall away. The Holy Spirit energizes the faith as
well as imparting eternal life. All we can do
is to respond to His drawings.

A participle, such as the word for "fall away" introduces a supposition and is so indicated by the particle "IF".

That supposition is supported by the argument
that it would require the death of Christ all
over again to make possible a "new" (different) kind of repentance from which one could not fall away. Christ is not coming to die again to give men another oportunity to be saved "for sure"!

If Christ's prayer regarding the will of the Father is not fulfilled that "none of those given to Christ will be lost", it would allow the sufficiency of the Cross to suffer ridicule.
John 6:38. So it may be considered a false assumption to say we could lose our salvation.

Salvation is both free and effective because it
depends totally on God's Spirit. Our decision
to accept Christ is not salvation "per se". The
Holy Spirit's work guarantees life eternal.

There are not two practical answers to this
question since our part in salvation is totally
an act of submiting our wills to God together
with the "sealing of the Holy Spirit until the
day of redemption".

Mel Miller www.lastday.net

From my point of view, Conditional Salvation Security (CSS) is the correct point of view, although I prefer to call it conditional security. I believe that it is the correct view for the following reasons,

1. The plain, obvious, and literal interpretation of many passages in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, requires that interpretation. This is especially but not exclusively true of the Greek text of the New Testament.

2. Many of the passages in the Bible that are commonly put forth by Christian lay people to defend the doctrine of eternal security do not support that doctrine when the Greek text of those passages is carefully read with special care being given to the Greek tenses being used. This is especially true of these passages found in the Gospel of John where the Greek present indicative and the Greek present participle are involved.

3. Christians who have a good knowledge of the Greek language and its verb system but who believe in the doctrine of eternal security are forced to either not use the passages in the Bible mentioned in #2 above to defend their position, or to argue that in those passages the Greek verbs are used in an anomalous manner and to cite grammars written by Baptists who teach these supposed anomalous uses of the Greek present indicative and the Greek present participle.

4. Although we have a great abundance of Christian writings that were written throughout the entire history of the church that clearly and expressly support the doctrine of conditional security, there is not known even one single Christian document written prior to the 16th century that even suggests that the concept of eternal security was known to the Church prior to the 16th century.

5. The first known writings that present the doctrine of eternal security base that doctrine, not upon a careful exegesis of the Greek texts concerning salvation, but upon a deduction from a 16th century concept of the sovereignty of God. Therefore, we have compelling evidence that the doctrine of eternal security is a bi-product of a faulty 16th century view of the sovereignty of God rather than a conclusion drawn from a careful exegesis of the applicable texts.

5. During 16th century and every century following, the doctrine of conditional security has been the majority view by a wide margin among Christian denominations and persons, and the doctrine of eternal security has been seen by these denominations and persons to be a false doctrine that is especially injurious to the Christian faith.

6. If the doctrine of eternal security is indeed the true doctrine, the Bible is so very poorly written that the doctrine of salvation could not be understood until the 16th century, and a Bible that is so very poorly written is much more likely the work men with poor communications skills than the inspired word of God.

7. And if the Bible is not the inspired word of God, we as Christians have nothing upon which to base our faith but the words of men with poor communication skills.

Ooooooo it's early.

Many of the passages in the Bible that are commonly put forth by Christian lay people to defend the doctrine of eternal security do not support that doctrine when the Greek text of those passages is carefully read with special care being given to the Greek tenses being used.

Click to expand...

But I'll have to once again register my disagreement with this statement. This way of viewing the Greek tense is outmoded. Tense is only one part (and often a small part) of temporal deixis.

I'll also register my agreement with what Helen said. Very well put. It is obvious that many DO "fall away". The question is how we square this with the idea of salvation, which is quite often described as one time event, a passage from death to light. I think that the best synthesis here is that not all who profess are truly saved. Many may go to church, recite prayer, life the life etc. But the one who is truly indwelled by God's Spirit will endure. The one who is not indwelled will, like 2 Peter says, return like a dog to its vomit, because there was not a real inward change.

Have a good day all. It will be a LONG one for me!

I'd like to see a discussion of the "if" of Heb. 3:14, and also the equivalence of disobedience and unbelief, and that no unbelievers will enter heaven. That believers who disobey are disciplined by God shows that they are his children. This seems to be contradictory.

Helen and Charles Meadows,

I still think it is pure assumption that one could "fall away" since God's sovereignty must
be recognized as the only initiative by which any may be saved. See above on Heb.6:4-6.

Once that initiative takes place, and a person
responds by faith, it is impossible for him to
"fall away" and be lost. Otherwise the prayer
of Jesus could not have been uttered with any
assurance that He will "not lose even one who
has been given Him by the Father". John 6:38.

Otherwise, also, the work of the Holy Spirit
cannot be counted upon as a "guaranteed act
of sealing us until the day of redemption".
A possiblity of "falling away" destroys the
integrity of God's promise and the efficacy
of Christ's death.

I think that's what Hebrews means by stating Christ cannot be crucified again to fulfill the false premise that a "different" (renewed) kind of repentance might be provided to maintain one's security.

Mel Miller www.lastday.net

Mel,

I think that people do "fall away". We see those who attend church for several months or even years only to fall back and return to their old ways. We also see examples in the Bible where people are described as being members of a church only to fall into sin.

I agree that salvation is a permanent change. And as I have pointed out in discuss with Craigbythesea I think the best biblical information on salvation comes from the descriptions of being saved, and not from verses which seem to speak of "falling away".

In the end I think that any who are truly indwelled with the Spirit will be preserved BY the Spirit. But there are those who will have emotional experiences or who will join the church without absolute committment. These will eventually "fall away" because they were never truly saved.

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Ooooooo it's early.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Many of the passages in the Bible that are commonly put forth by Christian lay people to defend the doctrine of eternal security do not support that doctrine when the Greek text of those passages is carefully read with special care being given to the Greek tenses being used.

Click to expand...

But I'll have to once again register my disagreement with this statement. This way of viewing the Greek tense is outmoded. Tense is only one part (and often a small part) of temporal deixis.

</font>[/QUOTE]Charles Meadows is here referring to recent studies by Stanley Porter, Bruce Fanning, D. A. Carson and others regarding the importance of verbal aspect in Greek verb tenses. But he is not telling you that the many scholars of New Testament Greek disagree to one extent or another with the conclusions of Stanley Porter, Bruce Fanning, and D. A. Carson on this matter. Neither is he telling you that that it IS the verbal aspect of the present indicative tense and present participle that refutes the interpretation of the eternal security passages in the Gospel of John by many Baptist scholars who hold to the doctrine of eternal security. In other words, Charles Meadows’ view of verbal aspect supports rather than refutes my understanding of the present indicative tense and present participle. The mere fact that I refer to the present indicative tense as a tense does not mean nor imply that I am emphasizing the action of the verb in reference to its position in time over the nature of the action of the verb as to its beginning, duration, completion, or repetition. Indeed, precisely the opposite is true.

For those who would like to learn more about verbal aspect and its importance in the understanding of Greek tenses, I suggest the reading of the following works on that subject?

Carson, D. A., and Porter, Stanley, ed. Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics. Sheffield, 1993.

Fanning, Buist. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford, 1993.

McKay, K. L. A New Syntax of the Verb in NT Greek. Peter Lang, 1994.

Olsen, Mari Broman. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. Garland, 1997.

Porter, Stanley. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Sheffield, 1992.

Porter, Stanley. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament. Peter Lang, 1993.

Having read all six of those works I will concur with Craig's recommendations.



Certainly aspect is an important part of the information conveyed by the Greek verb forms, although not likely the only part.

The issue is that it is neither aspect nor tense deixis which proves the point here. It is naive to think (I am not asserting that Craig is naive) that language is rigid to the degree that one can determine every nuance of the speakers' thoughts by looking at the verb form. Selection of verbal forms owes as much to style, prosody, and colloquy as it does to deictic location.

I will assert again that we best examine "eternal security" by looking at the way salvation is described. Jn 5:24, Jn 10:29, 1 Jn 3:14, Rom 6:11 are examples of verses which paint salvation as a one-time permanent change.

No one can argue that the NT does describe believers who fall away. But does it ever explicitly describe the Spirit leaving a person? No. Scripture DOES give us examples of those who fall away (1 Jn 2:19, 2 Pet 2:22). And there is often an insinuation that these individuals are returning to their natural ways, as if they had never been truly indwelled by the spirit which changes lives!

Craig,

I realize you have a lot of knowledge on this. But you are not the only one with an able mind and a lot of books!


I recall you reproved Doc Cassidy in another thread with these words:

That is a very bold and audacious statement for one to make unless one has the academic background to back it up. And those who do have that academic background would not make such a rash statement.

I agree that "eternal security" is not an easy issue and there are many passages which seem to suggest that salvation can be lost. But your arguments are a bit aloof. And I will point your own statement back at you!

Charles Meadows wrote,

I will assert again that we best examine "eternal security" by looking at the way salvation is described. Jn 5:24, Jn 10:29, 1 Jn 3:14, Rom 6:11 are examples of verses which paint salvation as a one-time permanent change.

Click to expand...

Individuals who are fortunate enough to have large homes and an art collection know first hand that moving a painting from one room to another with different lighting and a different decor makes the painting itself appear to change. My impression from your posts is that you have hung Jn 5:24, Jn 10:29, 1 Jn 3:14, and Rom 6:11 in a 20th century Baptist room. I, on the other hand, have hung the same verses in a first century Helenistic room. It is, therefore, no wonder that your paintings of theses verses look very different in your house than they do in mine.

Over the past 25 years I have studied these paintings with other art critics in many different rooms representing the full spectrum of Church history and theological decors and I have seen their appearance change as they are moved from room to room. But in the day that these painting were first conceived and painted, most of these different rooms and decors did not exist. The first century Helenistic room, however, most certainly did exist, and it was in such a room that these painting were conceived and painted.

I am not nearly as well learned in the writings of John as I am in the letters of Paul, and I realize that John lived and wrote in a world rather different from that of Paul, but both of them lived and wrote in the first century Helenistic world in which the concept of eternal security did not exist and would not exist for another 1,400 years. Therefore, one who imagines that he sees the concept of eternal security in either the writing of John or Paul is imagining that which is not there.

To you, I may sound arrogant, but I am not arrogant—I am simply very sure that neither John nor Paul believed in or thought in terms of eternal security. Much, if not most, of what John wrote is beyond my understanding and comprehension, but what he wrote on the subject of salvation is not. I am as sure of that as I am sure of my own name. I would very much like to have the grasp and knowledge of John’s gospel and epistles that Raymond Brown had, and I do not pretend to come even remotely close to that, but I know for a fact that John did not believe in the unconditional security of the believer.

And as for Paul, the concept of the unconditional security of the believer was about as far from Paul’s thinking as a concept could possibly be. As for Rom. 6:11 that you referenced above, I can not think of any scholar of Romans that sees in that particular verse any suggestion that Paul believed that salvation is something that cannot be forfeited by those who once had it. And, of course, I don’t see it there either. I did not see it there on my first reading of Romans, and did not see it there on any subsequent reading of Romans. If you know of any scholar of Romans who believes that he has seen in Rom. 6:11 a suggestion that Paul believed that salvation is something that cannot be forfeited by those who once had it, I would certainly appreciate knowing who that scholar is.

Please forgive my long delay in replying to your post.

Craig,

Fair enough.

And perhaps I should reiterate that I do not subscribe completely to the "once saved always saved" notion common in evangelical circles. Personally I find Calvin's formula much better on this.

I am too busy today to write much - but I am reminded of a quote by Ben Witherington:

"I think part of the problem is that we are still doing theology in an Enlightenment frame of mind, as if it were a string of ideas that we should logically link together, and once we've produced a nice logical circle, then we're home free. The truth is that life is a lot messier than that, and the Bible is more about stories than the history of ideas that are embedded in the stories."

Click to expand...

Not that one would used Witherington to defend eternal security!

But he alludes to the narrative character of scripture. Christians tend to see the Bible as being a book of "one-liners" to be used here and there. The fact is (as you well know) it is not that simple.

No one ever asked John or Paul or even Jesus if one could lose his status. The question was never asked and as such was never answered. In truth none of the verses either you or I have cited truly speak at all about "eternal security".

With that in mind we must search the scriptures to find how salvation is described. What is its character? My synthesis, although certainly not as learned as perhaps yours, is that salvation is something that when truly given is not lost. God will preserve the one whom He indwells.

Have a good day all!

My comments are in brackets.

Matthew 26:31
Then Jesus said to them [followers of Jesus - disciples], "You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ' I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK SHALL BE SCATTERED.'

Matthew 24:10
10"At that time many will fall away - [implies this is refering to believers since one cannot fall from a position if he was never in that position in the first place] - and will betray one another and hate one another.

Luke 8:11-15
11"Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.
12"Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.
13"Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away. - [saying they "believe" implies that these are people who do become believers (Christians) but it does not last since it says they "fall away"] -
14"The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity.
15"But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast - [this verse is obviously talking about those that become Christians - why would this say that they "hold it ('the word') fast" if it would be impossible for them not to do this? - if they are eternally secure no matter what, then why even say anything about them "holding it fast"?] - and bear fruit with perseverance.

1 Timothy 4:1
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, - [addressing believers (Christians) since these people were obviously in the "faith" as they could not have fell from it otherwise] - paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

Hebrews 3:12
Take care, brethren - [again, refering to believers], - that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. - [why warn these people of the possibility of them getting an evil, unbelieving heart and of falling away if it would be impossible for them to do so?]

Hebrews 6:4-6
4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6and then have fallen away - [addressing believers and says that they can fall away], - it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

2 Peter 3:17
You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, - [context implies that believers are being addressed - they cannot fall from their own steadfastness unless they are in a position to fall from steadfastness in the first place]

Galatians 5:18-22
18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. - [why is it assumed that a person that once professed faith in Jesus as Saviour is exempt from this warning?]


1 Corinthians 6:8-10
8On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. - [again, why is it assumed that if one that once professed faith in Jesus Christ, fell into these types of sins, he would still inherit the kingdom of God?]

Revelation 21:7-9
7"He who overcomes will inherit these things - [seems to be implying that one that is a believer could possibly not overcome] -, and I will be his God and he will be My son.
8"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Hebrews 3
1Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, - [referencing believers] - consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;
2He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house.
3For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house.
4For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.
5Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later;
6but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house--whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.
7Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
"TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
8DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME,
AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,
9WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me,
AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS.
10"THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION,
AND SAID, 'THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART,
AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS';
11AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
'THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.'"
12Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. - [this verse is addressing brethen (believers) and says that falling away is a possibility]
13But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
14For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, - [the word, "if" , means that is possible that a believer could not hold fast in which case, as this says, the person will no longer be a partaker of Christ] - 15while it is said,
"TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME."
16For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses?
17And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
18And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient?
19So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. - [this is comparing a Christain's walk with Jesus to the Jew's walk with God in the wilderness - because of their unbelief they were denied access to His rest - it also equates their disobedience to their unbelief - this seems then to be implying that if a believer is disobedient and has unbelief (or that disobedience would be a sign that the person would be in unbelief), he will not be able to enter into God's rest which seems like a reference to eternity with God]

I have no doubt that some that believe in OSAS will probably find a way to try to explain these verses in the context of OSAS. However, the people that believe in conditional security would probably do the same with verses presented by those that believe in OSAS to support that doctrine. I think that there are verses that could be used to support either doctrine. However, I believe that the doctrine that seems to flow more easily from the Bible is that of conditional security. In other words, I think one has to try harder to make verses "fit" the doctrine of OSAS than one does for the belief of conditional security.