OSAS?

At one juncture in my life, I may have been one of the world's biggest proponents of OSAS (Once-saved always saved). In fact, I will admit that it probably was the driving force behind my theology. From there, it is only a short step to Reformed Theology, which is the only system where OSAS even makes sense. Of course, in Reformed Theology, OSAS is a term they do not like to use; instead preferring the Perseverance of the Saints. I am using Reformed Theology in a narrow sense here, referring strictly to the 5 points of Calvinism.

Now as a Lutheran, I reject this teaching. Truth be told, it was the hardest thing for me to give up as I transitioned from Calvinism to Lutheranism. There are indeed promises all over Scripture that Christ will preserve us and keep us unto salvation.

But there are also all sorts of warnings in Scripture about falling away, grieving the Spirit, willfully sinning, being disqualified, and so on.

So, how do we reconcile these? Actually, I think when it boils down to it, it is not too difficult. The promises are directed to the new man that is created in regeneration. In Christ, we are secure forever. By the means of grace, which give us faith and strengthen it, we are more than conquerors, as St. Paul puts it.

In Christ, we are heirs of glory. And the best thing is, that in Christ, He alone does the entire work. He did it at Calvary, and He does it by grace in our lives through Word and Sacrament. Salvation is pure monergism. God's work alone. We cannot add to it or cooperate with it to make it better or more full. We only cooperate insofar as God has made us partakers of the divine nature, and this cooperation does not ensure, add to, or enhance our eternal stance in Christ.

All of this is given freely and the promises belong to the new man; the regenerate man.

But what of all those pesky warnings? What of the unrepentant? What of falling away from the faith? What of St. Paul writing that even he could be disqualified?

Many theologies assume way too much when reconciling these texts. For instance, Reformed Theology sets up a distinction between the visible and invisible church (with varying degrees of validity), essentially saying that the warnings refer to people who did not persevere in Christ and thus were not saved in the first place, despite being part of the visible church. Arminianism implies the opposite. That is, since we can fall away and spurn Christ by our own free will, therefore we can be saved by it too. Not to mention, the most consistent would be Roman Catholicism in this regard, slinging cooperation in everything into the mix.

I think it's pretty straightforward though. The promises (Gospel) are aimed at the new man. The saved man with the imputed righteousness of Christ. The warnings and the falling away are aimed at the old man who still exists. That old sinful nature of ours.

We will carry that sinful nature around until the day we die. And if anyone says that our old sinful nature is not capable of the grossest sins -including completely rejecting Christ and His gifts after they have been received- then they are certainly underestimating our sinfulness.

God alone feeds us, gives us faith, and strengthens our faith. We alone push Him away.

It's not that's difficult.

Pax