Actually, I'm fully aware of the meaning of the verbs and of the context.
I'm also aware of the already & not yet eschatological structures of the Text and of some of the textual markers to look for that speak of some of them. There's no doubt God's Plan is set from beginning to end. But our discussion is how a believer who chooses he wants no further part of it fits in that Plan./
If we take the non-OSAS view from the evidence that seems to support it, then between the already and not yet can exist a departure from the faith that none of what your general overview says cannot take place.
You8 view is
The simple fact is that when I say what verbs tell us and don't tell us, all I get back is someone's overall theology to tell me I'm wrong. Also, I've been at this long enough to see when theological interpretations are being inserted into verb tenses and actually at times trying to make the verbs say exactly the opposite of what they say, or to insert into them what they do not say.
All you're giving me here, Roger, is theological theory, and you're smart enough to know there is a long history of opposition to these theories and for reasons down into the textual level I'm asking about.
Actually, I'm fully aware of the meaning of the verbs and of the context.
I'm also aware of the already & not yet eschatological structures of the Text and of some of the textual markers to look for that speak of some of them. There's no doubt God's Plan is set from beginning to end. But our discussion is how a believer who chooses he wants no further part of it fits in that Plan.
I understand. But just to review -- the central premise of the
Once Saved, Always Saved view is that salvation, once genuinely received, is permanently secured by God. In this framework, salvation is understood as a completed divine act rather than an ongoing condition. Because God is the one who saves, and because His saving work is viewed as irrevocable, a truly saved person cannot lose that salvation. Perseverance, therefore, is not a requirement to
keep salvation but the expected evidence that salvation has already occurred.
Within this view, a person is considered fully and irrevocably “saved” at the moment of genuine faith in Christ. That initial act of believing is seen as the decisive, once‑for‑all event in which all sins—past, present, and future—are forgiven, the Spirit seals the believer, and eternal destiny is fixed. From that point forward, no future sin, failure, or lapse can undo what God has done. In OSAS, the moment of faith is the moment of final salvation, and everything that follows is the unfolding of what was already secured.
Some of us in this discussion are challenging the premise of OSAS, which is that Salvation is a completed act of God. It this is true, then I agree with you, OSAS isn't true, not because believers can fall away, but because Salvation isn't a completed act of God.
This brings to mind a story about a rabbi who was once asked, “Rabbi, why do airplanes crash?” He replied, “The real question isn’t why they crash, but why they stay in the air.” In the same way, our concern is not, “Why do some appear to fall away?” The deeper and more hopeful question is, “Why do believers persevere all the way to salvation?” The wonder is not in the failures but in the endurance — the God‑given stability that keeps faith aloft through every storm.
If we take the non-OSAS view from the evidence that seems to support it, then between the already and not yet can exist a departure from the faith that none of what your general overview says cannot take place.
All these years, I have read arguments from the non-OSAS folks, and I was frustrated because both the OSAS and Non-OSAS positions make the same flawed assumption: that salvation is the finished work of God; it is instantaneous, complete, permanent, and Spirit-Sealed.
To defeat the OSAS view, one must prove that salvation isn't a one-time, completed act of God. Rather than viewing salvation as a one‑time, completed transaction, Scripture presents it as a lifelong work of God carried out through sanctification. Paul describes this ongoing process as God “saving us through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit” and as Christ cleansing His people “by the washing of water with the word.” Salvation, in this sense, is not merely an event but a relationship in motion — a continual interaction between God and the one He is transforming. The Spirit does not simply seal a moment; He shapes a life. Sanctification is the arena in which God’s saving purpose unfolds day by day, as He renews the mind, redirects the will, and conforms the believer to the image of Christ. Under this view, a person is saved
through sanctification, not apart from it, because salvation is the ongoing work of God making a person holy, whole, and truly alive.
The simple fact is that when I say what verbs tell us and don't tell us, all I get back is someone's overall theology to tell me I'm wrong. Also, I've been at this long enough to see when theological interpretations are being inserted into verb tenses and actually at times trying to make the verbs say exactly the opposite of what they say, or to insert into them what they do not say.
All you're giving me here, Roger, is theological theory, and you're smart enough to know there is a long history of opposition to these theories and for reasons down into the textual level I'm asking about.
Despite our perspectives, When Paul strings together a series of aorist verbs, most scholars agree he is doing more than simply reporting past events. The aorist tense allows him to present God’s saving actions as a single, unified whole — a completed sequence from God’s perspective, even if believers experience those realities across time. By using the aorist, Paul compresses the entire sweep of God’s redemptive work into one decisive, sovereign act. It is a rhetorical way of saying:
God’s purpose is not unfolding in fragments; it stands as one coherent, unstoppable movement. The grammar itself becomes theology — emphasizing the certainty, unity, and divine initiative of salvation.
In passages like Romans 8:29–30, this stacking of aorists communicates that the stages of God’s saving work (foreknowing, predestining, calling, justifying, glorifying) are not fragile steps that might break down. Paul is not describing a chain that
might hold; he is declaring a chain that
already holds in God’s intention. Even “glorified,” though future in our experience, is cast in the aorist to underscore its certainty. Scholars often call this Paul’s “prophetic past” or “proleptic aorist” — using past tense to describe a future reality because its fulfillment is guaranteed. In short, Paul uses the aorist to let believers see their salvation from God’s vantage point: unified, secure, and already accomplished in His purpose, even as it unfolds in time.
