Contrary to the fantasy world that conditional security defenders live in, the bottom line is that some on each side, both cs (conditional security) supporters and osas (once saved always saved) supporters live the same lifestyles, and each belief system has some of the same outcomes.

"but eternal security is a license to sin!," they love to chant

I regret having to digress, but I must:

As for my observation that both sides 'live the same lifestyles,' I realize that many a conditional security advocate operates under the egotistical and false assumption that all conditional security defenders are holy and perfect and will thus merit eternal bliss. Think "Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Forces," or "Luke and Bo Duke." (*)

I realize also that conditional security backers live under a delusion which they find comforting: that those schooled in the "once saved always saved" perspective are allegedly hedonistic party animals who don't live godly lifestyles. Think "Darth Vader and the Empire," or "Boss Hog." (*)

It is an oft used piece of propaganda for "csers" to vilify "osasers" (here exaggerated to make a point):

I know when I myself first learned of "once saved always saved" when I was around the age of eight, the first thing I did was rob a bank. My thoughts went something like this:

Seriously? None of that ever happened. At age 8, I was playing with my "lite brite" and hoping that I wouldn't have to endure another piano lesson. These examples just go to show how utterly idiotic the conditional security view is -- particuarly their assumption that osas leads to nothing but sin and more sin in the life of the believer.

One will often find personal examples of the "osaser doing wrong" in the essays or apologetic works of conditional security authors, much like the

tales that were incorporated into spooky stories back in the 1950s, stories which were meant to scare teens from doing the nasty.

When conditional security folks go this story telling route, it is meant to appeal to the emotions, and to demonstrate how utterly bad, bad, bad the teaching of "once saved always saved" and its followers are.

They can deny it all they like, but those in the conditional security camp are no more godly, pure, holy or good than those who believe in "once saved always saved."

Reaching the Same Destination by Using Different Maps

Now that the 'license to sin' issue has been dealt with, we may continue onwards.

Some from each side, both cs and osas, occasionally sin, ask for forgiveness, and try to refrain from sinning again, all with the belief that one is still saved. I say this with confidence, since one will probably be hard pressed to find a conditional security advocate who would say,

One of the few differences between the two groups is that "osas" believers (particularly the ones who abuse the osas teaching and who are probably spiritually immature to boot), are more honest about their sins, and in admitting they do in fact sometime engage in sin to begin with.

As I state in my other essay,

Have you ever met, or even heard of, a Calvinist who claims that he or she is not one of the elect? Neither have I. Your conditional security propagator is no different in this regard. I can just imagine their thought processes:

Granted, the conditional security enthusiast will add all manner of strings, requirements, and "ifs" by way of unscriptural teachings (or grossly misapplied Scripture) to the Gospel.

In the end, though, they know they are 'once saved always saved,' as long as they remain "Bible-thumping-do-gooders." And again, how many of them are going to actually include themselves in the number that does not consist of "Bible-thumping-do-gooders?" Why none, of course, even those who sin more than a Christian of the "once saved always saved" persuasion.

For those conditional security supporters who will actually admit to the occasional sin, what is their remedy for "losing" their salavtion? How do they 'fix' this problem?

I wager their solution is not too different from that of the eternal security supporter who has sinned and who is seeking to 'get right' again with God ('getting right' from the "once saved always saved" stand point meaning repairing the relationship, as eternal security proponents do not believe that the entire relationship is forever gone).

Some of these methods used by both groups after sinning might include asking God for forgiveness, submitting more to the Holy Spirit, and so on.

Since there is not a huge difference in the practical outworking of both parties (each side gets to go to heaven despite their sins), what, if anything, is there to gain from championing the conditional security banner?

If you are a theologian or pastor, perhaps a profit, or else name recognition, from all those nifty conditional security scare tracts and books you make, are the goal:

For the others, maybe pride:

---

* The fact that I even made references to secular entertainment, by way of Star Wars and The Dukes of Hazard, is sure to be construed by conditional security advocates of what a worldly, hell bound sinner I am. Pure, godly, perfect sinless people such as those of the conditional security crowd do not even own television sets. The real elite don't have electricity in their homes. They entertain each other by putting on sock puppet shows. Barn raising and butter churning are also popular in some conditional security circles.