By Gbenga Osinaike
I saw the video where US-based Pastor Dolapo Lawal went for the jugular of the “Once Saved, Forever Saved” (OSAS) proponents.
Truth be told, he did not spare them. He was not only irritated by the very idea that once you are saved, you are saved forever irrespective of what you do; he came down hard on them, saying that even thinking of such an idea is demonic.
He could not understand why some believers in Christ would claim that once they are saved, they are forever saved regardless of their lifestyle.
Since he delivered that message, the internet has been buzzing with all kinds of comments and reactions. Some even went so low as to say he was merely looking for cheap relevance. They posted pictures he had supposedly taken with Dr. Abel Damina, claiming he came to spy on Damina’s “liberty” and that of his followers. It got so bad that the online argument became intensely vitriolic in some cases.
“You can’t lose salvation!” “You can lose salvation!” “How can you lose what is eternally given?” “Why can’t you lose it if you are careless with it?” “You must be stupid to say you can lose salvation!” “If you are not stupid, you won’t think that salvation is eternal!” That has been the constant back-and-forth.
It has been not only dramatic but an engaging, entertaining hub for social media users. This spectacle has made many people wonder why there are always doctrinal debates and contentions among Christians.
A History of Contention
First, we must understand that debate and argument have been part of the Church since the first century. It is not new.
The very first contention we see in the Bible was when some Hellenistic believers complained that their widows were being neglected in the daily welfare distribution of the Church (Acts 6:1).
This informed the need to ordain deacons, whose work would be to look after the welfare of the vulnerable who needed help.
Later, the early Church engaged in an intense debate over whether Gentile Christians should be forced to live like Jews. The dissension was so strong that Paul and Barnabas had to send representatives to Peter and the rest of the leadership in Jerusalem to get their views.
After a thorough examination of the various positions in what has been dubbed the Jerusalem Council, the apostles, led by Peter and James, came up with the verdict that the Gentiles should not be burdened with the ceremonial laws of Moses.
However, they were to be warned against fornication and eating things offered to idols.The issue was officially addressed in Acts 15:28–29, where they stated: ”For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.”
It is important to note that those recommendations were not criteria for salvation. They had already been saved. There was simply no agreement on the initial “dos and don’ts.” Here, we see the leadership speaking under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit.
The Craze for Something New
Having different views about what has already been clearly spelt out in the Bible is a tradition that has always plagued the Church. Even among the apostles, Paul was considered quite deep and esoteric in his presentations.
Peter explicitly warned that untaught and unstable people were reading Paul’s letters out of context to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
The truth is that human beings generally love to hear new things. This has been the bane of the Church from the very beginning. The gospel seems too simple and commonplace to some, so they feel a need to add to it.
When they read about grace, they add “hyper” to it and turn it into hyper-grace. It is a delusion. The Bible firmly warns against the leaven of the Pharisees (Luke 12:1), which corrupts pure doctrine.
It is this craze for something new that birthed early heretics like the Gnostics, whom John warned against in his epistles (1 John 4:1–3). Paul also wrote extensive letters warning Timothy and Titus about the coming of wolves and people spreading weird, destructive teachings (2 Timothy 4:3–4, Titus 1:10–11).
So, it is historically understandable that there is an ongoing debate on the issue of salvation.
The Core of the Contention
The point must be made, however, that the argument is not really about whether salvation is eternal. It is about the dangerous assertion that once you are saved, you have no further moral obligations—that even if you live the rest of your life disobeying God or completely abandon the faith, you will still be saved and inherit God’s kingdom.
The position of the OSAS advocate is that once a person is born, such person cannot be unborn.
On face value, that sounds nice and plausible. But it defeats the very purpose of God’s eternal plan for man and stands logic on its head.
Physical birth and spiritual birth are two sides of a coin, but they are not identical. Jesus made this distinction clear when He told Nicodemus, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6).
He went further to explain: ”The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” — John 3:8
The implication is that we cannot neatly map the limitations of physical birth onto spiritual birth. Spiritual birth is initiated by God; the Holy Spirit convicts a man and brings him to Himself. We do not see the Holy Spirit physically, but we must see the effects of His action.
A man who is saved is considered saved because he bears visible fruit made possible by the internal work of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23). A saved person is hungry for God. A saved person has a desire to serve God. A saved person thinks constantly about pleasing their Maker.
A Suspicious Argument
The question then is: what would make supposedly saved persons come to the point of aggressively arguing that because they are saved, they can live carelessly?
The very root of that argument is suspect. It shouldn’t even be a debate in the first place. Each time people throw up these kinds of legalistic loopholes, it is a sign that something is missing in their vibrant relationship with God.
For those who are truly sincere, the debate shouldn’t be about whether salvation is secure. It should be taken for granted that God’s salvation is eternal because that is exactly what Jesus promised (John 10:28).
But that promise does not exist in a vacuum. “Whosoever believes in Him” will be saved. The element of ongoing belief and faith is paramount. If you truly believe in a person, you will be willing to follow through with their commands.
Rather than arguing about whether our salvation is an unconditional insurance policy, we should be asking: What did He ask us to do after we professed salvation? It is a given that our works did not bring us to Christ; it was entirely His finished work on the cross (Ephesians 2:8–9). However, we were saved precisely so that we could do His will and walk in good works (Ephesians 2:10).
Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15), and His commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3). Salvation pours the love of God into our hearts, creating an authentic craving to always do His will.
So, why should it ever proceed from the mouth of some believers that because they are saved, they can do whatever they like and remain saved? It is truly unthinkable.
Pastor Dolapo Lawal may not be entirely wrong to conclude that the very mindset underlying this reckless view of grace is demonic. This is not an attempt to insult those who hold the view, but to reinforce the reality that true salvation is self-evident and needs no debate for those who are genuinely walking in faith.
When we start arguing over the proprietary right to sin under the guise of eternal security, it is a clear indication that something fundamental has broken down in our fellowship with God.
The apostles did not argue about loopholes to sin. Instead, they foresaw that in the latter times, some would depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1). They knew a time would come when people would abandon sound doctrine to follow teachings that compromise the holy standard of salvation.
The ultimate truth is this: if “once saved, forever saved” applies irrespective of a lifestyle of unrepentant rebellion, then there would be absolutely no basis for the countless warnings laid out in scripture on how to live our lives. Paul would have had no reason to warn that some would depart from the faith. After all, how can someone depart from a faith they never truly possessed? That is a line every sincere believer needs to ponder.