Why isn't the reformed church calling this new osas out for what it is?
Why isn't the reformed church calling out the new osas movement when they say focusing on obedience is works salvation?
Why isn't the reformed church separating itself from those of the reformed persuasion who are indeed immoral and using osas (their version) as the excuse to be immoral?
You only see that in a couple of denominations.
They hardly characterize the church.
I do not know of any person, with the exception of maybe one, who believed that his works literally purchased his salvation. I don't think it fair to lump people who believe their works are the expected and necessary outcome of faith (or else it's not really faith) with the few, virtually non-existent people who think their salvation is literally bought and paid for with their works of righteousness.
By far, the church is becoming characterized by it's flippant attitude toward sin, thinking that grace makes it so they can not sin to the point of hardening the heart in unbelief. I almost want to take the word 'becoming' out of that last sentence, but I will let it stand for now. This forum is proof of where the church as a whole is at concerning sin. The great falling away is happening. And the last twenty years shows it's happening fast.
Firstly, I think it's easy to become a self-righteous Pharisee in regards to works.
Secondly, Reformed people have addressed easy believism. John MacArthur addressed the issues regarding no-Lordship salvation strongly in several books.
Thirdly, if you don't focus on union with Christ, you're a half-baked cake yourself. The greasy gracers are half-baked, and so are the legalists.
Fourthly, I am not sure what you mean by immoral Reformed churches..if you are talking about groups like PCUSA who ordain homosexuals and things like that, the people I associate with don't even consider them to be Reformed or Christian. By the way, there are a few PCUSA churches that don't agree with their denomination's stance on those issues and have voted against them. But, I am not sure why they don't separate totally from the denomination. One Reformed Baptist church I attended recently left the Southern Baptist Convention due to issues regarding women leadership and "woke church" stuff, so I think they have done what they can.
Fifthly, Reformed theology teaches "perseverance of the saints" and not "once saved always saved". Some uninformed Reformed people may be confused on that point, though, especially new believers. Additionally, when I say "Reformed", I am not talking about guys at Dallas Theological Seminary who believe in eternal security, but do not believe in the other four points, like Norm Geisler, Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, Robert Wilkin..those guys are not really Reformed.
If you really want to focus on this issue, study "Free Grace Movement" and "Grace Evangelical Society"..they are the main group I think you should be criticizing. Southern Baptist Convention is another group that harbors those types of guys...although about 20 percent are Reformed and would not agree with "once saved always saved".
The Reformed position is that God saves the person, and gives them eternal salvation, but this salvation necessarily results in holiness. All believers pursue holiness and are ultimately glorified....but none of them are saved without pursuing holiness. It is part of being on the vine..their life is joined with Jesus' life and they produce fruit as a necessary result.
Any other view is a half-baked cake.
2
