The New Testament left us with detailed explanations of how one becomes a child of God. Don't you think that if that process could be reversed, it make sense that it would have gone into equal detail explaining that as well?
One defense for OSAS That I've seen repeatedly is the parable of the lost son. It's interesting to note the way that parable applies to this topic is that he was never really lost as far as his salvation goes. The relationship with his father was damaged but it wasn't destroyed.
Here's how Charles Stanley explains it:
A certain man had two sons; and the younger of them said to his father, “Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.”—Luke 15:11–12
With those words Jesus had His audience’s undivided attention. From what we understand of first–century Jewish culture, no son with any respect at all for his father would dare demand his share of the inheritance. It was customary for the father to choose the time for the division of the inheritance. To make things worse, the younger son was making the request. What he did was unthinkable!
Jesus continued,
And he divided his wealth between them. And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living.—Luke 15:12–13
Not only did he demand his share of the inheritance, the younger son left town with it. Apparently, he had no concern for his father’s welfare. He was concerned about only himself. So he took the money, went to a distant country, and partied it all away.
No doubt Jesus’ listeners were all rehearsing in their minds what they thought the disrespectful brat deserved. How dare he take such a large portion of his father’s hard–earned estate and throw it away! According to the law, a son who cursed his father or was rebellious and stubborn was to be put to death (see Lev. 20:9; Deut. 21:18–21). The death penalty was the most likely verdict reached by many who listened that day.
But then the story took a surprising turn: (Could it be God's hand was on the situation?)
Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be in need. And he went and attached himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he was longing to fill his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him. —Luke 15:14–16
The crowd must have become almost nauseous as Jesus described the condition in which the boy found himself. The Pharisees would not even go near swine, much less feed them. By their definition, the young man was hopelessly ceremonially unclean. That is, he would probably never get clean enough to enter the temple and offer sacrifices. And to think he would even consider eating with the pigs. To them, he had gone over the edge, but then, he deserved it.
At the same time, however, many who stood there that day could relate to the story of the prodigal son. They had abandoned their heavenly Father. Like the lad in the story, they were in situations that caused them to be alienated from the religious community. By the practiced standard of the day, they were unacceptable to God. They listened carefully as Jesus went on,
But when he came to his senses, he said, “How many of my father’s hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men.’ ” And he got up and came to his father.—Luke 15:17–20
I imagine everyone who heard Jesus that day had an opinion about what the father should say or do when the boy began his speech. At the same time, I doubt any of them would have ended the parable the way Jesus did:
But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him, and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him, and kissed him.—Luke 15:20
The Pharisees must have cringed at the thought of embracing someone who had spent time feeding swine. Jesus then added,
And the son said to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.” But the father said to his slaves, “Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.” —Luke 15:21–24
A Worst Case Scenario
Culturally speaking, what Jesus described in the parable was a worst case scenario. The boy could not have been more disrespectful. He could not have been any more insensitive. And he certainly could not have been a greater embarrassment to the family.
No one would have blamed the father if he had refused to allow the boy to join up as one of his hired men. The son didn’t deserve a second chance, and he knew it. He recognized how foolish it would be to return with the notion of being allowed back into the family. That was not even a consideration. In his mind, he had forfeited all rights to sonship. He was of the conviction that by abandoning his father and wasting his inheritance, he had relinquished his position in the family.
His father, however, did not see things that way at all. In his mind, once a son, always a son. The father’s first emotion as he saw the son returning wasn’t anger. It wasn’t even disappointment. He felt compassion for him. Why? Because the young man was his son!
The father said: “This son of mine was dead and has come to life again” (Luke 15:24). He did not say, “This was my son, and now he is my son again.” On the contrary, there is no hint that the relationship was ever broken, only the fellowship. By “dead” Jesus meant “separated.” That was clearly a figure of speech since the son did not physically die in the parable.
Christ’s next words have been used by some to argue that salvation can be lost. He went on to say, “He was lost, and has been found” (v. 24). To say that “lost” and “found” refer to eternal salvation is to assume that they are being used figuratively. But there is no evidence for such a use from the immediate context. The son was literally lost. That is, the father did not know where he was. When the son returned, he was found.
Charles F. Stanley, Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure?
