Yes, this is their popular circular argument that I have already raised somewhere in this thread.
You are saved by faith alone apart from works
But if there are no works after that, then your faith is dead and you are not really saved.
It's only circular when you maintain that 'works' are something originating in people. But the Bible doesn't say that - the Bible says it is God working in the saved both to will and to do.
So the works that follow salvation are evidence of that salvation, absolutely, but if there are none, even in the heart unseen by men, then the implications are that God is not at work in the person, because salvation is of God, not of ourselves.
It cannot be that God fails - so the criticism of, as they put it, 'OSAS' is built on a total mischaraterization of salvation, presenting an imaginary person that is truly saved but in whom no change of heart is found.
This is a contradiction of the very meaning of salvation because salvation is a supernatural work of God acting on and in a person. God does not fail and God is not unfaithful to complete what He begins.
Opponents of the faithfulness of God to preserve and redeem the saved portray a person in whom God is not at work, and portray a salvation dependent on a person's will and a person's works, a completely carnal description of our redemption in which God plays no part.
It is no wonder they live in constant fear that their salvation is in jeapordy of being lost, because they believe that they are the ones upon whom the burden of being saved lies - what folly it is to put our trust in man, even in ourselves! We all agree on that.
But the critic then accuses all who do not put their trust in themselves, of practicing and excusing sin. Why?