QUESTION: give me the verses and reasons why those who hold to the ‘once saved always saved’ belief. Not Calvinism with it’s double predestination, but soft Arminianism that holds to OSAS.

ANSWER:

Summary (why non-Calvinist OSAS advocates think “once truly saved, always saved”)

Jesus’ promise-texts portray eternal life as a present possession and use emphatic negation (“never”) for final loss (esp. John 5–6; 10).
Salvation is framed as God’s completed act (justification, new birth, union with Christ), not a probationary status maintained by works.
The Spirit’s sealing/pledge language is read as God’s own guarantee “until” final redemption (Eph 1; 4).
Christ’s priestly intercession is taken to imply “saved to the uttermost” because the Mediator does not fail (Heb 7).
In a soft-Arminian / non-Reformed OSAS frame: grace is resistible before conversion, but once regeneration occurs, God preserves the believer; warnings are treated as means of perseverance, tests of genuine faith, or warnings about discipline/rewards rather than loss of justification.

Exegesis: key texts OSAS advocates treat as “pillars”

Below I give (a) the core verse(s), (b) the decisive Greek phrasing (NA28/UBS5), and (c) the logic OSAS proponents draw.

1) John 10:27–29 — the “double hand” + emphatic negation

ESV (key clause): “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish … no one will snatch them out of my hand.”
Greek (NA28/UBS5): καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (“and they will certainly not perish unto the age”).
- οὐ μή + aor. subj. is the strongest common Koine way to negate a future possibility (“never, certainly not”).
OSAS inference: If Jesus describes the outcome with maximal negation and grounds security in divine custody (Son’s hand + Father’s hand), then final loss would contradict the stated guarantee.

2) John 6:37–40 — the Father’s will about “all” given to the Son

ESV (key clause): “I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”
Greek: ἵνα μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ (“that I might not lose [anything] of it”) + ἀναστήσω (“raise [it] up”).
OSAS inference: The text frames final salvation as the Son’s commission (the Father’s will) rather than the believer’s long-term performance—hence “loss” would entail failure of the Son’s stated mission.

3) John 5:24 — present possession + perfected transition

ESV (key clause): “has eternal life … has passed from death to life.”
Greek: ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον (“has eternal life”) + μεταβέβηκεν (“has passed,” perfect tense).
OSAS inference: The perfect indicates a completed transfer with continuing result. OSAS proponents argue this is not a reversible “trial” but an accomplished change of state.

4) Romans 8:1; 8:29–39 — no condemnation + inseparable love

ESV: “There is therefore now no condemnation …” (8:1) and “nothing… will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus” (8:39).
Greek: οὐδὲν κατάκριμα (“no condemnation”) + οὔτε… ἑτέρα κτίσις (“nor any other created thing”).
OSAS inference: Paul’s rhetoric is read as exhaustive: if no created thing can separate, then the believer (a creature) cannot finally undo union with Christ by sheer creaturely power.

5) Ephesians 1:13–14; 4:30 — “sealed” and “until the day”

ESV (key clauses): “sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee …” (1:13–14); “sealed for the day of redemption” (4:30).
Greek: ἐσφραγίσθητε (you were sealed) + ἀρραβών (pledge/down payment/guarantee) + εἰς ἡμέραν ἀπολυτρώσεως (“for/until the day of redemption”).
OSAS inference: In the ancient world, a seal marks ownership/authentication and a pledge obligates the giver. OSAS advocates read this as God’s self-binding commitment to finish what He began.

6) 1 Peter 1:3–5 — guarded by God’s power “through faith”

ESV (key clause): “by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed.”
Greek: φρουρουμένους ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως (“being guarded by God’s power through faith”).
OSAS inference: Security is God’s guarding action, with faith as the instrument. Non-Calvinist OSAS commonly says: genuine saving faith endures (not as merit, but as the continuing instrument God sustains).

7) Hebrews 7:25 — intercession “to the uttermost”

ESV: “he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”
Greek: σῴζειν εἰς τὸ παντελές (“to save completely/utterly”).
OSAS inference: If the efficacy of salvation is tied to Christ’s perpetual priesthood, final loss would imply a decisive failure in priestly representation.

8) Hebrews 10:14 — perfected “for all time” by one offering

ESV: “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
Greek: τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκές (“has perfected for all time/continuously,” perfect).
OSAS inference: OSAS advocates treat this as a definitive, enduring status grounded in the once-for-all sacrifice, not a reversible standing that fluctuates with performance.

9) Philippians 1:6 — “will bring it to completion”

ESV: “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion.”
Greek: ἐπιτελέσει (will complete/finish).
OSAS inference: The subject of the completing is God; this is read as a divine commitment to finish the salvific work He initiates.

10) 1 John 5:11–13 — assurance tied to God’s testimony

ESV: “God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son… that you may know that you have eternal life.”
Greek: ἔδωκεν (“gave,” aorist—gift given) + ἔχετε (“you have,” present possession).
OSAS inference: The logic is gift + possession + knowability; OSAS proponents argue that if eternal life can be finally lost, the epistemic “know” is destabilized.

11) 2 Timothy 2:11–13 — divine faithfulness even amid faithlessness

ESV (key clause): “if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself.”
Greek: ἀπιστοῦμεν… ἐκεῖνος πιστὸς μένει (“if we are faithless… he remains faithful”).
OSAS inference: Read as God’s covenant fidelity to His own saving act/union; not as license to sin, but as a claim that salvation’s decisive anchor is God’s character.

12) Jude 24 — God “able to keep”

ESV: “Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless…”
Greek: φυλάξαι (to guard/keep).
OSAS inference: Doxological, but treated as a real theological claim: God’s keeping power is sufficient to secure the eschatological presentation.

Supporting texts OSAS advocates regularly add (one-line rationale)

John 3:16 — if life is αἰώνιος (“of the age to come”), it is not construed as temporary.
Romans 5:1–2, 9–10 — justification/reconciliation as accomplished realities with future-saving implications.
1 Corinthians 1:8–9 — God will “sustain… to the end”; His calling is faithful.
1 Corinthians 3:11–15 — “saved, but only as through fire”: loss of reward without loss of salvation.
2 Corinthians 1:21–22; 5:5 — Spirit as seal/pledge again.
Colossians 3:3–4 — life “hidden with Christ”; future appearing with Him.
1 John 2:1–2 — advocacy/propitiation language supports continuing standing amid sin.
1 John 3:9 — “seed abides”: taken as regeneration’s irreversible principle.

Theological analysis (non-Calvinist OSAS synthesis) + contrast with Reformed perseverance

A. Soft-Arminian / Provisionist-leaning OSAS (core moves)

Resistible grace up to conversion; irreversible new birth after conversion.
- Pre-conversion: humans can resist the Spirit’s drawing.
- Post-conversion: regeneration is God’s creative act; final apostasy is interpreted as evidence of non-regeneration (1 John 2:19 is often invoked) or as a severe case of discipline without loss of justification (a “free-grace” variant).
Justification is juridical and definitive (courtroom logic).
- Romans 8 frames the verdict as “no condemnation.” OSAS advocates argue: if God the Judge has issued the eschatological verdict in advance (in Christ), it is not repeatedly re-litigated as though Christ’s atonement were provisional.
Sealing/pledge means God has “staked” His own name on completion.
- The Spirit’s σφραγίς (seal) and ἀρραβών (pledge) are read as God’s public commitment to finish redemption.
Warnings function as means, tests, or reward/discipline texts.
- In this scheme, warning passages are not ignored; they are assigned a different referent: false professors, mixed congregations, loss of reward, temporal judgment, or God’s preserving instrument to keep true believers persevering.

B. Contrast with Calvinist/Reformed “perseverance of the saints”

Reformed: perseverance is the necessary fruit of unconditional election and effectual calling; a true believer will not finally fall away, and persistent apostasy proves non-election/non-regeneration.
Non-Calvinist OSAS: reaches a similar endpoint (final security) but tries to ground it in promise, union, sealing, and Christ’s intercession rather than in a deterministic decree involving double predestination.

Historical context (very brief, but relevant)

OSAS defenders often acknowledge that many early post-apostolic writers strongly exhort perseverance and speak in ways that sound “conditional,” whereas later Western doctrinal development sharpened categories like justification, adoption, assurance, and sacramental/discipline frameworks.
Modern OSAS in conservative evangelicalism is frequently associated with Baptist and Dispensational streams, which emphasize (i) salvation as a free gift, (ii) positional/forensic categories, and (iii) rewards/discipline distinctions.

Scholarly insight (representative non-Reformed OSAS articulations)

Charles C. Ryrie defines eternal security as God’s work guaranteeing that salvation “cannot be lost,” and explicitly distinguishes security from subjective assurance. Fellowship Bible Church
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum defines eternal security as the Spirit’s ongoing work bringing grace “to completion,” and states that one who has undergone true regeneration “cannot lose his salvation,” grounding it in God’s work rather than the believer’s. cloud.arielcontent.org
Note (for balance within your framework): I. Howard Marshall is a prominent conservative scholar who argues extensively that the NT contains real warning language about falling away (i.e., he is a major counter-voice to OSAS in evangelical scholarship). Google Books

Deep “reality-level” account (ontology → spiritual dynamics → implications)

Metaphysical / ontological level

OSAS advocates treat salvation not mainly as a fluctuating moral score, but as a change of being and status:

Union with Christ: the believer is incorporated into Christ’s life (which is indestructible).
New birth/new creation: regeneration is a creative act, not merely a decision; undoing it would imply “un-creating” what God has created.
Legal standing: justification is an irreversible verdict grounded in Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice (Heb 10:14 logic).

Psychological–spiritual level

Assurance stabilizes obedience: not “I obey so I won’t be expelled,” but “I obey because I belong.”
Danger OSAS must actively fence off: antinomian drift (“cheap grace”). Non-Calvinist OSAS typically counters with (i) divine discipline, (ii) loss of reward, (iii) evidentiary fruit, and (iv) the moral incongruity of regeneration without transformation.

Divine-perspective level

The controlling claim is God’s faithfulness to His own promise and action: what God has pledged in Christ, He completes (Phil 1:6; Eph 1:13–14). The ground of perseverance is not human willpower but God’s covenant fidelity.

Practical application (in the OSAS logic)

Assurance is anchored in Christ’s promise and work, not in the day-to-day volatility of spiritual performance.
Holiness is pursued as congruence with new identity (and as gratitude), not as wage-earning to retain justification.
Warning texts remain pastorally and ecclesially necessary—as instruments for self-examination, perseverance, and community discipline—even if not read as teaching loss of regeneration.

Sources (for the quotations and definitions used above)

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
The Greek New Testament, 5th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014).
Charles C. Ryrie, “Eternal Security (Romans 8:35–39)” (PDF handout/lecture notes; no publication date stated in the PDF). Fellowship Bible Church
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, MBS102: Eternal Security (Ariel Ministries, ©1985, 2005). cloud.arielcontent.org
I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (repr.; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008 [orig. 1969]). Google Books

If you want the next step, I can produce (1) the top warning passages usually raised against OSAS (Heb 6; Heb 10; 2 Pet 2; John 15; etc.) and (2) the specific non-Calvinist OSAS rebuttals for each, using the same exegesis-first format.

QUESTION: Give me the verses and reasons that full Arminianism believe that one truly saved can walk or drift away from salvation.

Summary (why classical Arminianism affirms “conditional security”)

The NT contains direct warning texts addressed to church audiences that depict a real possibility of apostasy (decisive turning from Christ), not merely loss of reward.
Many passages describe salvation as continuing union (“abide,” “continue,” “hold fast”) with explicit conditions and consequences.
Several texts portray some people as having genuinely shared in covenant realities (Spirit, sanctification, escape from defilements) and yet later falling away.
Arminian theology therefore distinguishes: God is faithful and provides preserving grace, but He does not negate human freedom; believers must continue in faith (enabled by grace), and can repudiate that faith.

Exegesis (principal “conditional security” passages)

A. Hebrews: the strongest Arminian “apostasy” corpus

1) Hebrews 2:1–3 — “drift away” by neglect

ESV: “We must pay much closer attention… lest we drift away… how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?”
Greek (NA28/UBS5): μήποτε παραρυῶμεν (“lest we drift away”); ἀμελήσαντες (“having neglected”).
Arminian reason: The warning presumes a real salvific peril from neglect (not only doctrinal error). “Escape” language frames consequences as judgment, not merely diminished reward.

2) Hebrews 3:12–14; 4:1 — “falling away” from the living God; conditional “share”

ESV: “Take care… lest there be… an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God” (3:12). “We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end” (3:14).
Greek: ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ζῶντος (“to depart/fall away from the living God”); μέτοχοι… γεγόναμεν, ἐάνπερ… κατάσχωμεν (“we have become sharers, if indeed we hold fast”).
Arminian reason: (i) “fall away” (ἀφίστημι/ἀποστῆναι) is the standard lexical field for apostasy, (ii) the “we” includes the addressed congregation, and (iii) the conditional clause is taken as real: final sharing in Christ is contingent on continuing faith.

3) Hebrews 6:4–6 — “once enlightened… partakers… and then fell away”

ESV: “For it is impossible… in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit… and then have fallen away…”
Greek: φωτισθέντας (“enlightened”); γευσαμένους (“tasted”); μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου (“having become partakers of the Holy Spirit”); παραπεσόντας (“having fallen away”).
Arminian reason: The cumulative participles are read as describing real participation in salvation’s benefits (especially “partakers of the Holy Spirit”), and παραπίπτω (“fall away”) is taken as decisive apostasy, not a momentary lapse. “Impossible… to renew” underscores severity (not merely loss of rewards).

4) Hebrews 10:26–31; 10:29 — “no sacrifice remains”; “sanctified” by the blood

ESV: “If we go on sinning deliberately… there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins…” (10:26). “has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified…” (10:29).
Greek: Ἑκουσίως ἁμαρτανόντων (“sinning willfully/deliberately”); οὐκέτι… θυσία (“no longer [a] sacrifice”); ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη (“by which he was sanctified”).
Arminian reason: The text depicts a post-knowledge state (“after receiving the knowledge of the truth,” v.26) with covenantal language (“blood of the covenant,” v.29). Arminians argue that “sanctified by the blood” most naturally refers to a genuine covenant standing, and the outcome is fearful judgment—hence real forfeiture is possible.

B. John 15:1–6 — union-with-Christ is conditional on abiding

ESV: “Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away… If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away… and burned.”
Greek: ἐν ἐμοί (“in me”); μὴ μένῃ (“does not remain/abide”); ἐβλήθη ἔξω… καίεται (“thrown out… burned”).
Arminian reason: The branch is explicitly said to be “in me” and later removed for failing to remain. Arminians take the burning imagery as eschatological judgment, not mere loss of privilege.

C. Paul: “continue” / “otherwise you too will be cut off”

1) Romans 11:20–22 — conditional continuation in God’s kindness

ESV: “They were broken off because of unbelief… you stand fast through faith… provided you continue… Otherwise you too will be cut off.”
Greek: τῇ πίστει ἕστηκας (“you stand by faith”); ἐὰν ἐπιμένῃς… ἐπεὶ καὶ σὺ ἐκκοπήσῃ (“if you continue… otherwise you also will be cut off”).
Arminian reason: Even granting the corporate (Jew/Gentile) dimension, the logic is explicitly faith-conditional. Arminians treat “cut off” as at least compatible with individual forfeiture, and a real warning against presumption.

2) Colossians 1:21–23 — reconciliation stated, then conditioned

ESV: “He has now reconciled you… if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast…”
Greek: εἴ γε ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει (“if indeed you continue in the faith”).
Arminian reason: The “if indeed” is read straightforwardly: the reconciled status is not to be treated as unconditional irrespective of persevering faith.

3) Galatians 5:4 — “severed from Christ… fallen from grace”

ESV: “You are severed from Christ… you have fallen away from grace.”
Greek: κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ (“you were nullified/severed from Christ”); τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε (“you fell from grace”).
Arminian reason: The verbs are strong relational/participatory terms. Arminians argue Paul is not describing mere loss of reward but a real spiritual rupture produced by embracing a justification-by-law posture.

D. “Real participation, then relapse”: 2 Peter 2:20–22

ESV: “If, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of… Jesus Christ, they are again entangled… the last state has become worse…”
Greek: ἀποφυγόντες (“having escaped”); ἐπιγνώσει (“knowledge,” often intensive); πάλιν ἐμπλακέντες ἡττῶνται (“again entangled and overcome”).
Arminian reason: The text describes more than superficial association; it depicts a real moral escape “through the knowledge of Christ,” then a return that yields intensified culpability—consistent with apostasy.

E. Pastoral epistles and Revelation: “depart,” “shipwreck,” names blotted out

1) 1 Timothy 4:1 — explicit “depart from the faith”

ESV: “In later times some will depart from the faith…”
Greek: ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως (“some will apostatize from the faith”).
Arminian reason: The verb family (ἀφίστημι) is direct apostasy language; “the faith” is the Christian faith. Arminians argue this is not merely leaving a local church but abandoning belief.

2) 1 Timothy 1:19–20 — “shipwrecked” faith

ESV: “By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith…”
Greek: περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν (“they suffered shipwreck concerning the faith”).
Arminian reason: Not just moral failure; it is faith itself that is wrecked—consistent with ruin rather than mere setback.

3) Revelation 3:5 — name not blotted out (warning-by-implication)

ESV: “I will never blot his name out of the book of life…”
Greek: οὐ μὴ ἐξαλείψω (emphatic “I will certainly not blot out”).
Arminian reason: The promise is to “the one who conquers,” implying a real category distinction between conquerors and those who do not. Arminians often connect this with OT “blotting out” covenant-judgment imagery and treat it as compatible with forfeiture for those who fail to endure.

(Text-critical note: Rev 22:19 has a well-known variant between “tree of life” vs “book of life”; it does not control the doctrine by itself, but it illustrates that “removal” language exists in the textual tradition.)

Theological analysis (classical Arminian logic) + brief contrast to OSAS

Arminian/Provisionist synthesis

Salvation is covenantal and relational (union with Christ), not mechanical.
The NT’s “abide/continue/hold fast” language is taken as ontologically significant: salvation is “in Christ,” and one can later repudiate that union by persistent unbelief.
Apostasy is not ordinary sin but willful unbelief/repudiation.
Hebrews’ vocabulary and scenarios (deliberate sin, trampling the Son, profaning covenant blood) are read as decisive covenant breach.
Grace is genuinely enabling, not coercive.
God supplies sufficient grace for perseverance, but does not override the believer’s capacity to turn away; therefore perseverance is synergistic (God enables; humans must continue in faith).
Warnings are real means and real possibilities.
Arminians resist reclassifying all warnings as “addressed only to false professors.” The warnings are treated as one of God’s ordained means to keep believers persevering—yet meaningful precisely because the danger is real.

Contrast (OSAS / Reformed)

OSAS and Reformed readings tend to interpret these warning texts as: (i) describing people who were never regenerate, (ii) referring to loss of reward/temporal judgment, or (iii) corporate-covenantal dynamics rather than individual salvation loss.
Arminians reply: the texts’ diction (“partakers of the Spirit,” “sanctified by the blood,” “in me,” “depart from the faith”) and the direct address to congregations are too strong to reduce to mere appearance.

Historical context (Second Temple + covenant logic in the background)

Arminians frequently observe that biblical covenant discourse includes real categories of being “in” the covenant community and later being “cut off” for unfaithfulness. That covenant logic supplies a Jewish conceptual background for NT warning idioms such as “cut off,” “blot out,” and “branch removed,” which are readily heard as real covenant breach, not just diminished privilege.

Scholarly insight (representative conservative Arminian voices)

Roger E. Olson summarizes classical Arminianism as affirming that true believers can commit apostasy and perish, while emphasizing God’s grace as necessary for perseverance: Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006). Internet Archive+1
Robert E. Picirilli (Free Will Baptist) offers a detailed exegetical case for conditional security against OSAS: Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation (Nashville, TN: Randall House Publications, 2002). Google Books+1
I. Howard Marshall is a major evangelical argument that the NT’s falling-away texts should be taken seriously as real possibilities for believers: I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (London: Epworth Press, 1969). National Library of Australia+1
J. Kenneth Grider (Wesleyan-Holiness) systematizes conditional security within a holiness framework: J. Kenneth Grider, A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1994). Amazon Australia+1

Practical application (as Arminians draw it)

Assurance is real but conditioned: assurance is grounded in Christ and present faith, not in a claim that apostasy is impossible.
Warnings are pastorally central: they are treated as God’s appointed instrument to prevent presumption and cultivate endurance.
Spiritual drift is a real category: Hebrews’ “drift” and “hardened by sin’s deceitfulness” language means neglect and incremental compromise can culminate in open repudiation if not resisted.

QUESTION: Produce a side-by-side audit table (like your earlier format) for the top 8–12 warning passages: Text / Key Greek / Why Arminians read it as loss-possible / The standard OSAS counter-reading / My assessment of which reading is stronger and why.

Below is a text-first audit of 12 of the most-cited “warning / falling-away” passages. I am judging “stronger” by (i) plain-sense reading of the clause(s), (ii) lexical / grammatical force, (iii) local argument flow, and (iv) whether a reading relies on extra-textual theological premises more than the other.

Abbreviations:
NA28/UBS5 = Nestle–Aland 28 / UBS Greek NT 5th ed.
OSAS counter-readings commonly come in two non-identical forms: Perseverance (false professors were never regenerate) and Free-Grace OSAS (real believers can incur severe discipline/temporal judgment + loss of reward, but not loss of justification).

Side-by-side audit table (top warning passages)

Text	Key Greek (NA28/UBS5)	Why Arminians read it as loss-possible	Standard OSAS counter-reading	My assessment (stronger reading & why)
Heb 2:1–3	μήποτε παραρυῶμεν (“lest we drift away”); ἀμελήσαντες… σωτηρίας (“neglecting… salvation”)	(1) Addressed to the community (“we”). (2) “Neglect” → real peril; “how shall we escape?” frames judgment, not mere reduced reward.	Perseverance: mixed audience; warning keeps professing community alert; “we” is homiletical. Free-grace: “escape” = temporal judgment/discipline.	Lean Arminian: the rhetoric (“escape,” comparison with OT judgment logic) fits real salvific peril more naturally than “loss of reward,” though “mixed audience” remains a live possibility.
Heb 3:12–14; 4:1	ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ζῶντος (“to fall away/depart from the living God”); μέτοχοι… γεγόναμεν, ἐάνπερ… κατάσχωμεν (“we have become sharers… if indeed we hold fast”)	ἀφίστημι/ἀποστῆναι is classic “apostasy/depart” diction. The conditional (ἐάνπερ) is taken as real: sharing in Christ is contingent on holding fast “to the end.”	Perseverance: the “if” is evidentiary—holding fast proves genuineness, not conditions it. Free-grace: warning against forfeiting inheritance/rewards; “share” language = participation short of regeneration.	Mixed, slight Arminian: ἀποστῆναι + end-oriented conditional reads most straightforwardly as warning believers against real departure; OSAS “evidentiary if” is possible but imports a theological grid to soften the conditional.
Heb 6:4–6	φωτισθέντας (“enlightened”); γευσαμένους (“tasted”); μετόχους… πνεύματος ἁγίου (“partakers of the Holy Spirit”); παραπεσόντας (“having fallen away”)	The stacked descriptors sound like genuine participation in saving realities, especially “partakers of the Holy Spirit.” παραπίπτω in this context is read as decisive apostasy; “impossible to renew” implies catastrophic forfeiture.	Perseverance: descriptors can describe profound exposure/experience short of regeneration; “tasted” ≠ fully possessed; “partakers” = association with Spirit’s work in community. Free-grace: hypothetical warning, or loss of blessing/repentance opportunity short of losing justification.	Lean Arminian: the cumulative language most naturally describes real participation; OSAS readings often must (i) downgrade the descriptors or (ii) reframe as hypothetical—both are possible, but textually less economical.
Heb 10:26–31 (esp. 29)	Ἑκουσίως ἁμαρτανόντων (“sinning deliberately”); οὐκέτι… θυσία (“no sacrifice remains”); ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη (“by which he was sanctified”)	Post-“knowledge of truth” + “no sacrifice remains” reads as final apostasy. v.29: “sanctified by covenant blood” sounds like a real covenant standing forfeited by repudiation (trampling Son, profaning blood).	Perseverance: “sanctified” may be external consecration (set apart in community), or refers to Christ’s sanctification (less common); the apostate was never regenerate. Free-grace: “no sacrifice remains” = no other remedy; severe temporal judgment/death possible, not loss of salvation.	Lean Arminian (with one caveat): v.29 is the crux—ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη most naturally refers to the person warned, not merely external proximity. Caveat: “sanctified” can be used covenantally without proving regeneration; still, the passage reads more like real apostasy than mere reward loss.
John 15:1–6	πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ… αἴρει (“every branch in me… he takes away”); μὴ μένῃ (“does not abide”); ἐβλήθη ἔξω… καίεται (“thrown out… burned”)	“In me” + later removed for not “abiding” looks like union that can be forfeited. Burning imagery is taken as eschatological judgment.	Perseverance: “in me” can denote covenantal/discipleship attachment (Judas-like) without regeneration; the burned branches were never truly alive. Free-grace: burned = temporal judgment/discipline; or metaphor for uselessness.	Mixed: “in me” is weighty, but Johannine categories allow “attached” disciples who are not regenerate. The “burning” language pushes toward judgment; OSAS is plausible if “in me” is visible covenant attachment rather than saving union.
Rom 11:20–22	τῇ πίστει ἕστηκας (“you stand by faith”); ἐὰν ἐπιμένῃς… ἐπεὶ καὶ σὺ ἐκκοπήσῃ (“if you continue… otherwise you too will be cut off”)	Explicit conditional: continue in faith, or be “cut off.” Arminians see a genuine warning against unbelief leading to severance.	Perseverance: primarily corporate-historical (Gentiles as a group vs Israel as a group); “cut off” = loss of privileged position, not individual salvation. Free-grace: same corporate emphasis; not a salvation-loss text.	Lean OSAS (corporate reading stronger): the olive-tree argument is overtly about corporate peoples in redemptive history. Individual application is legitimate pastorally, but doctrinally this text is weaker evidence for individual salvation loss.
Col 1:21–23	ἀποκατήλλαξεν (“he reconciled”); εἴ γε ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει (“if indeed you continue in the faith”)	Reconciliation is stated, then conditioned by persevering faith; “if indeed” implies genuine possibility of not continuing.	Perseverance: the conditional is evidentiary—continuance manifests true reconciliation. Free-grace: continuance pertains to steadfastness/reward; reconciliation stands.	Mixed: grammatically, it is a real condition; conceptually, Paul frequently uses conditionals as exhortative tests within assured frameworks. This is not as explicit as Hebrews, but it does support conditional-security reasoning.
Gal 5:4	κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ (“you were severed from Christ”); τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε (“you fell from grace”)	The verbs read like real rupture from Christ/grace through adopting law-justification; supports genuine forfeiture.	Perseverance: those seeking justification by law show they never truly trusted Christ. Free-grace: “fallen from grace” = moving from grace-principle to law-principle in sanctification; loss of fellowship/liberty, not salvation.	Lean Arminian: the direct relational language (“severed from Christ”) is hard to reduce to “lost rewards only.” Context is justification (5:4 is tied to being “justified by the law”), which is soteriologically central.
2 Pet 2:20–22	ἀποφυγόντες… ἐπιγνώσει (“having escaped… through the knowledge”); πάλιν ἐμπλακέντες ἡττῶνται (“again entangled and overcome”)	“Escaped defilements… through knowledge of Christ” looks like real deliverance; relapse yields worse end state. The proverbs (dog/vomit) depict tragic reversal.	Perseverance: “knowledge” can be external/cognitive; moral reform without regeneration; “worse end” = greater judgment for apostasy from profession. Free-grace: describes false teachers never saved; or saved but severely judged temporally (less common here).	Slight Arminian: this is one of the stronger “participation then relapse” texts. OSAS can still argue “reformation without regeneration,” but the escape/knowledge phrasing makes that a harder sell than in some other passages.
1 Tim 4:1	ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως (“some will depart/apostatize from the faith”)	The phrase is overt: apostasy from “the faith” is possible; naturally read as once-in then out.	Perseverance: departing from the faith shows they never had saving faith. Free-grace: departure from orthodoxy/discipleship, not loss of justification (often paired with “loss of reward”).	Mixed: the verse asserts apostasy phenomenon, but by itself doesn’t specify whether the apostates were regenerate. It is better as supporting evidence alongside Hebrews/John 15/Gal 5/2 Pet 2.
Rev 3:5	ὁ νικῶν… οὐ μὴ ἐξαλείψω (“the one conquering… I will certainly not blot out”)	Promise to overcomers implies a contrast-class; “book of life” imagery suggests real possibility of blotting-out for non-overcomers.	Perseverance: “overcomer” = all true believers (1 John theme), so promise is universal to the regenerate; not implying blotting-out. Free-grace: overcomer is faithful believer; non-overcomers lose reward, not salvation; “blot out” is rhetorical assurance, not threat.	Lean OSAS: the verse is framed as a promise, not a direct warning. “Implication of threat” is possible but not explicit; better used cautiously, not as a primary proof of salvation-loss.
1 Cor 9:24–27 (esp. 27)	μήπως… ἀδόκιμος γένωμαι (“lest… I become disqualified”)	Arminians argue “disqualified” can mean disqualified from final salvation if Paul fears ultimate ruin.	Perseverance: ἀδόκιμος here is disqualification from reward/ministry approval, not loss of salvation; fits athletic metaphor + judgment-of-works framework. Free-grace: strongly reward-focused (cf. 1 Cor 3).	Lean OSAS (reward/ministry): the athletic imagery + Paul’s broader reward theology makes “loss of reward/approval” the more text-fitting sense; using it for salvation-loss is possible but less contextually anchored.

A few clarifying notes (where the disagreements actually hinge)

“Mixed audience” vs “regenerate audience.”
OSAS readings frequently rely on the claim that warning texts address congregations containing both true believers and false professors. Arminians respond that several warnings use language that sounds like genuine participation (Heb 6; Heb 10; 2 Pet 2).
The semantics of participation terms.
The debates repeatedly focus on terms like μετέχω / μέτοχος (“share/partake”), ἁγιάζω (“sanctify”), ἐπιγνῶσις (“knowledge”), and whether they can denote non-regenerate covenant proximity. They can—sometimes—but in certain contexts the “downgrade” feels strained.
Whether “conditions” are logical conditions or evidentiary conditions.
OSAS (especially Reformed) often converts conditionals into “evidence of genuineness.” Arminians argue this can flatten the plain force of ἐὰν / εἴ γε / ἐάνπερ in warning contexts.

Bottom-line synthesis (text-first)

Most supportive of Arminian conditional security: Heb 6:4–6; Heb 10:26–29; Gal 5:4; 2 Pet 2:20–22 (and Heb 3:12–14 close behind).
Most compatible with OSAS without heavy strain: Rom 11:20–22 (corporate), Rev 3:5 (promise form), 1 Cor 9:27 (reward/ministry), and to a degree 1 Tim 4:1 (phenomenon stated, status of apostates unspecified).
Truly contested hinge text: John 15:1–6 (meaning of “in me” + nature of “burning” in Johannine imagery).

Sources for texts referenced/quoted

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
Barbara Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
The Greek New Testament, 5th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014).

If you want, I can now do the same audit but restrict OSAS counter-readings to the “soft-Arminian OSAS” family only (excluding Reformed “false professor” moves), which produces a cleaner comparison for your stated target.

QUESTION: Yes, do the same audit but restrict OSAS counter-readings to the “soft-Arminian OSAS” family only (excluding Reformed “false professor” moves)

Summary (what changes when we exclude “they were never saved”)

A soft-Arminian / non-Reformed OSAS (often “free-grace” or “eternal security” in Baptist/Dispensational streams) typically keeps these commitments:

The warned persons can be genuine believers.
The threatened outcomes are read as (a) severe divine discipline (including physical death), (b) loss of fellowship/fruitfulness, (c) loss of reward/inheritance, or (d) irreversible hardening that ruins usefulness—without loss of justification/new birth.
Warning texts function as means God uses to keep believers sober and persevering, but the “loss” is framed as non-salvific.

With that restriction, several passages become much harder for OSAS to absorb without strain—especially the Hebrews warnings and 2 Peter 2.

Audit table (12 key warning passages) — with OSAS counter-readings restricted to “soft-Arminian OSAS”

Sources for text base: ESV; Greek per NA28/UBS5.

Text	Key Greek (NA28/UBS5)	Why Arminians read it as loss-possible	Soft-Arminian OSAS counter-reading (no “false professor”)	My assessment (stronger reading & why)
Heb 2:1–3	μήποτε παραρυῶμεν (“lest we drift away”); ἀμελήσαντες… σωτηρίας (“neglecting… salvation”); πῶς ἡμεῖς ἐκφευξόμεθα (“how shall we escape?”)	“We” + “escape” language reads as real judgment peril for those who neglect salvation realities.	Neglect produces serious discipline (possibly culminating in death) and forfeiture of reward; “escape” = escaping God’s temporal judgments, not loss of eternal life.	Lean Arminian. The “escape” framing and OT-judgment comparison pattern reads more naturally as salvific peril than as reward-loss alone. OSAS must narrow “judgment” to temporal categories not stated in the text.
Heb 3:12–14; 4:1	ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ζῶντος (“to depart from the living God”); μέτοχοι… γεγόναμεν, ἐάνπερ… κατάσχωμεν (“we have become sharers… if indeed we hold fast”)	Apostasy diction (ἀποστῆναι) + conditional ἐάνπερ suggests real possibility of failing to reach the end and thus forfeiting final participation.	Real believers can “depart” in the sense of practical rebellion; “share in Christ” is read as experiential participation/inheritance, conditioned on perseverance, while eternal life remains secure.	Mixed, slight Arminian. The lexical force of “depart from the living God” plus end-oriented conditional pushes toward real apostasy. OSAS can reframe as inheritance/experience, but that is a theological distinction more than a textual one here.
Heb 6:4–6	μετόχους… πνεύματος ἁγίου (“partakers of the Holy Spirit”); παραπεσόντας (“having fallen away”); ἀδύνατον… πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν (“impossible… to renew again to repentance”)	Descriptors look like genuine salvific participation; “impossible to renew” implies catastrophic forfeiture, not mere setback.	Genuine believers can fall into a state of irreversible hardness where restoration to repentant maturity becomes impossible in that life (or humanly impossible), leading to severe discipline and loss of usefulness/reward—yet not loss of justification. “Repentance” = restoration, not initial conversion.	Lean Arminian. Once OSAS cannot say “never saved,” it must explain why “partakers of the Holy Spirit” + “fallen away” + “impossible to renew” does not describe salvific ruin. The “restoration-to-maturity” reading is possible, but textually less direct.
Heb 10:26–29	Ἑκουσίως ἁμαρτανόντων (“sinning deliberately”); οὐκέτι… θυσία (“no longer remains a sacrifice”); ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη (“by which he was sanctified”)	Post-knowledge deliberate sin brings “no sacrifice” and fearful judgment; “sanctified by the covenant blood” reads like a real covenant standing now repudiated.	Willful persistence in grave sin triggers maximal temporal judgment (including death) and total forfeiture of reward/inheritance; “no sacrifice remains” = no alternate remedy besides facing God’s chastening. “Sanctified” can be read as covenantally set apart with real privileges (even for believers), forfeited in experience, not in justification.	Lean Arminian (strongly). Without the “not truly saved” move, OSAS has to keep “sanctified by blood” and “no sacrifice remains” inside a discipline/reward framework—possible but strained given the passage’s courtroom/vengeance tone.
John 15:1–6	κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοί (“branch in me”); μὴ μένῃ (“does not abide”); ἐβλήθη ἔξω… καίεται (“thrown out… burned”)	“In me” then removed and burned if not abiding: reads like forfeiture of saving union, with judgment imagery.	A true believer can be “in Christ” covenantally but become unfruitful; removal is disciplinary pruning/removal from effective service, and “burning” can be metaphor for destruction of useless works/fruit, not eternal damnation.	Mixed. OSAS can plausibly interpret the imagery as fruitfulness/discipline (Johannine themes allow covenant attachment vs abiding). But the “burning” language still feels more judicial than merely “lost productivity.”
Rom 11:20–22	τῇ πίστει ἕστηκας (“you stand by faith”); ἐὰν ἐπιμένῃς… ἐπεὶ καὶ σὺ ἐκκοπήσῃ (“if you continue… otherwise you will be cut off”)	Continuance-in-faith condition with “cut off” consequence: supports loss-possible reading.	Primarily corporate-historical (Gentile inclusion vs Israel); “cut off” = loss of privilege/role, not individual salvation.	Lean OSAS. Context strongly favors corporate redemptive-history argument; it’s a weak primary proof for individual salvation-loss.
Col 1:21–23	ἀποκατήλλαξεν (“he reconciled”); εἴ γε ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει (“if indeed you continue in the faith”)	Reconciled… if you continue—reads as conditional security.	The conditional concerns being presented mature/steadfast (and assurance), or inheritance/reward; reconciliation (forensic standing) is secure, but Paul exhorts perseverance toward the eschatological presentation and maturity.	Mixed. Grammatically it’s a condition; conceptually Paul often uses conditional exhortation within assurance. Not as explicit as Hebrews either way.
Gal 5:4	κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ (“you were severed from Christ”); τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε (“you fell from grace”)	Strong relational rupture language in a justification-by-law context; suggests forfeiture.	“Severed/fallen” is from the grace-principle (operating by law) and from sanctification benefits/liberty, not from regenerate union; they step out of grace’s operating sphere into legalism.	Lean Arminian. The language is naturally soteriological because it’s embedded in a justification argument. OSAS can reframe as “method of sanctification,” but the immediate context (“you who would be justified by the law”) resists easy downshifting.
2 Pet 2:20–22	ἀποφυγόντες… ἐπιγνώσει (“having escaped… through knowledge”); πάλιν ἐμπλακέντες ἡττῶνται (“again entangled and overcome”); “worse for them than the first”	Describes real escape through knowing Christ, then relapse to a worse end—fits apostasy of real participants.	Under this restriction, OSAS must say: true believers can relapse into corruption and incur severest chastening and worse accountability (even death), with ruin of testimony and reward—yet not loss of eternal life.	Strongly Arminian. This is one of the hardest texts for OSAS without “never saved.” The moral-escape + “worse end” logic reads like final ruin; turning it into discipline/reward feels least text-driven here.
1 Tim 4:1	ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως (“some will depart from the faith”)	Direct apostasy language: supports the possibility of departing from saving faith.	Real believers can depart from “the faith” as doctrinal defection (serious error) with loss of fellowship, ministry, and reward; salvation remains. The verse states a phenomenon but doesn’t specify eternal destiny.	Mixed. The verse asserts apostasy but does not itself specify whether the apostates were regenerate or damned. It supports Arminianism more as part of a cumulative case than as a standalone proof.
Rev 3:5	ὁ νικῶν… οὐ μὴ ἐξαλείψω (“the one conquering… I will certainly not blot out”)	Promise to overcomers implies non-overcomers face blotting-out; “book of life” suggests salvation stakes.	Read as assurance rhetoric to spur endurance; “blot out” is not a threatened reality for true believers, but a promise highlighting security, while “overcoming” pertains to faithful living and reward/recognition.	Lean OSAS. It’s framed as a promise, not an explicit warning of erasure. Using it to prove possible loss is inferential.
1 Cor 9:24–27	μήπως… ἀδόκιμος γένωμαι (“lest… I become disqualified”)	If Paul fears ultimate disqualification, salvation-loss is possible.	ἀδόκιμος = disapproved for prize/reward and ministry usefulness, not loss of justification—fits athletic “crown/prize” motif and broader reward teaching (cf. 1 Cor 3).	Lean OSAS. Context is reward/discipline for effective service; reading it as salvation-loss is possible but not the most context-constrained meaning.

Net result under the “soft-Arminian OSAS only” constraint

The OSAS position remains most plausible (least strained) in texts that naturally lend themselves to corporate privilege (Rom 11), promise form (Rev 3:5), or reward/prize metaphors (1 Cor 9).
The Arminian position becomes decisively stronger where the text combines (i) salvation-proximal language, (ii) judicial threat rhetoric, and (iii) participation descriptors, especially: Heb 6:4–6; Heb 10:26–29; Gal 5:4; 2 Pet 2:20–22.

Minimal bibliography for the two competing non-Reformed frames (optional anchors)

If you want to tie the “soft-Arminian OSAS” readings to recognizable streams without importing Reformed premises, the most typical homes are:

Dispensational / eternal security emphasizing rewards, chastening, and distinction between justification and fellowship/inheritance (e.g., classic Baptist/Dispensational treatments).
Wesleyan / Arminian emphasizing real apostasy as covenant breach and warning texts as describing genuine loss.

If you want, I can now convert this into your stricter “evangelical audit” format you used earlier—adding two extra columns that usually clarify everything:

“What the text explicitly threatens” (judgment / death / exclusion / burning, etc.)
“Whether the OSAS reading requires a category shift not stated in the text” (reward vs life; temporal vs eschatological).

QUESTION:

Looking for the stronger argument.

From bother sides of the argument, there seem to be definite unescapable declarations.

For OSAS, it can be:

1) John 10:27–29 — the “double hand” + emphatic negation

ESV (key clause): “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish … no one will snatch them out of my hand.”

Greek (NA28/UBS5): καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (“and they will certainly not perish unto the age”).

οὐ μή + aor. subj. is the strongest common Koine way to negate a future possibility (“never, certainly not”).

OSAS inference: If Jesus describes the outcome with maximal negation and grounds security in divine custody (Son’s hand + Father’s hand), then final loss would contradict the stated guarantee.

Yet for the full Arminian view, there is:

1) Hebrews 2:1–3 — “drift away” by neglect

ESV: “We must pay much closer attention… lest we drift away… how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?”

Greek (NA28/UBS5): μήποτε παραρυῶμεν (“lest we drift away”); ἀμελήσαντες (“having neglected”).

Arminian reason: The warning presumes a real salvific peril from neglect (not only doctrinal error).

Both cannot be true, and so I look to the verses that are hardest to deny their plain meaning.

I.e. in this example, for OSAS, John 10:27–29, Jesus could be stating it definitely, strongly to make the point that no one can take it away, such is it’s total security in Christ. But He may not be saying that it is impossible to walk/drift away from faith/salvation.

Whereas for Arminianism, it is much hard to read it as anything else than what it says: can drift away; after having tasted…; etc…

It seems that with the OSAS proof verses, they can be read as not completely literal, and as is for so many things and times in the Bible, it is not to be read as only literal.

Is this true?

Is there any reasonable way to refute the seemingly obvious reading of the Arminian view?

ANSWER:

You are framing the issue correctly: there are promise texts that sound absolute and warning texts that sound absolute. The decisive question is not “literal vs non-literal,” but scope (what exactly is being promised/threatened), reference class (who exactly is in view), and semantic domain (what “salvation / perish / cut off / fall away” is referring to in that context).

Below is the most text-driven way to analyse your two examples, and then the strongest “hard-to-deny” texts on both sides.

1) John 10:27–29 is not “non-literal”; it is “not exhaustive”

Text (ESV): “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand…” (ESV, John 10:27–29).
Greek (NA28/UBS5): καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (10:28).

The key exegetical point: what is (and is not) asserted

John 10 makes two distinct claims:

Outcome claim: “they will certainly not perish forever” (οὐ μή + subj.).
Threat-model claim: “no one will snatch them” (ἁρπάζω) from Christ/Father.

The snatching verb (ἁρπάζω) is naturally an external-force verb: seize, carry off, take by force. That clause, by itself, is not obviously addressing self-abandonment (volitional repudiation), but external removal.

So an Arminian can say, without “non-literalising” anything:

“No one can take them away from Christ by force,” yet
“A believer can later repudiate faith and cease to be among the ‘sheep’ who hear/follow.”

The “sheep” description is also relevant

John 10:27 defines the referent:

“My sheep hear my voice… and they follow me.” (present-tense characterization)

A conditional-security reader will say: the promise is for the class described (those hearing/following), not for a hypothetical person who definitively stops believing/following.

A soft-OSAS reader will say: the description is not a mere condition but a mark of Christ’s sheep—God ensures they continue.

Either way, John 10 is best read as a literal, strong assurance text, but it does not explicitly settle the metaphysical question: can a regenerate person later cease to be a sheep by apostasy? It asserts security for Christ’s sheep; it does not anatomize apostasy.

Bottom line: John 10 is not best handled by “non-literal” readings. It is better handled by category + scope (security from external seizure; promise for the sheep-class).

2) Hebrews 2:1–3: “drift” is real, but the debated point is what is lost

Text (ESV): “lest we drift away… how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” (ESV, Heb 2:1–3).
Greek (NA28/UBS5): μήποτε παραρυῶμεν (2:1); ἀμελήσαντες (2:3).

What is hardest to deny in Hebrews 2

The warning is addressed to “we.”
Neglect has serious consequences (“how shall we escape?”).

Where soft-OSAS has a plausible (not Reformed) line of reply

Soft-OSAS does not need to deny the warning. It argues the warning is about judgment, but not necessarily loss of justification.

Two contextual levers they use in Hebrews (especially in Dispensational/eternal-security streams):

Hebrews’ wilderness typology (Heb 3–4): a redeemed people can suffer catastrophic judgment and miss “rest,” without that mapping one-to-one onto loss of eternal salvation.
“Salvation” in Hebrews can be eschatological deliverance/inheritance language, not always a technical synonym for “justification.” Hebrews is saturated with “inherit,” “rest,” “reward,” “shrink back,” “world to come” themes.

This is why (even on an Arminian reading) Heb 2:1–3 is not the strongest Arminian text. It is a real warning, but it is less explicit about final loss than Hebrews 6 and 10.

3) The genuinely “hardest-to-deny” Arminian texts are not Hebrews 2, but Hebrews 6 / 10 and 2 Peter 2

If your criterion is: “Which texts least tolerate being reduced to ‘reward only’ or ‘discipline only’?”, then the pressure points are:

Hebrews 6:4–6 (partakers of the Holy Spirit… fell away… impossible to renew).
Hebrews 10:26–29 (no sacrifice remains… profaned covenant blood… by which he was sanctified).
2 Peter 2:20–22 (escaped defilements through knowledge of Christ… entangled again… worse end).
Galatians 5:4 (severed from Christ… fallen from grace) is also weighty because it sits in a justification argument.

These are the texts that soft-OSAS must work hardest to keep within a “discipline/inheritance” frame without resorting to “they were never saved.”

4) Is there a reasonable way to refute the “obvious” Arminian reading?

Yes—reasonable in the sense of “not incoherent, not evasive,” but it requires specific thesis-choices. Here are the main non-Reformed options, with an honest appraisal of their cost.

Option A: “Inheritance / rest / reward” framework (strongest soft-OSAS move)

Claim: Hebrews (especially) warns genuine believers about forfeiting eschatological inheritance/rest/reward and incurring severe divine judgment (including possibly death), not losing justification/new birth.

Strength: It preserves the reality and severity of warnings without denying security. It fits the heavy “wilderness” argument in Hebrews 3–4.
Cost: In Hebrews 6 and 10, the language reads very naturally as covenantal repudiation with ultimate consequences; keeping it strictly in “reward/discipline” requires insisting that the author can speak in maximal judgment tones while still not meaning final loss.

Option B: “Covenantal sanctification / participation” without regeneration (a middle move, but it tends to drift Reformed)

Claim: terms like “sanctified,” “partakers,” “tasted,” can describe real covenant participation and Spirit-experience short of regeneration.

Strength: It explains why language can be strong without implying regeneration.
Cost: This is functionally adjacent to the “false professor” move you wanted excluded. It is not identical, but it often ends in the same place.

Option C: “Rhetorical warning as means” without asserting actual possibility

Claim: the warnings are real instruments God uses to keep believers persevering; the text does not require that final apostasy is metaphysically possible for the regenerate.

Strength: It treats warnings as meaningful and urgent.
Cost: Hebrews 6 and 10 do not merely say “be careful”; they depict a case description. Many readers will feel this option weakens the plain force of the described scenario unless paired with A or B.

5) Are OSAS proof texts “not completely literal” in the way you suggested?

Generally, no. The better statement is:

OSAS proof texts are often literal assurances, but they do not always specify every failure-mode (external seizure vs internal repudiation; present sheep-class vs hypothetical apostate).
Arminian warning texts are often literal warnings, but they do not always specify whether the threatened outcome is loss of justification versus loss of inheritance/rest unless the context is explicit.

So the interpretive battle is typically not “literal vs non-literal.” It is which contextual constraints are most defensible and which theological distinctions are textually warranted.

6) My assessment if your goal is “strongest, hardest-to-deny plain meaning”

John 10:27–29 is extremely strong for security-from-external-loss and for the certainty of Christ’s saving intention for His sheep, but it is not the hardest text to force into conditional-security, because conditional-security can affirm it by restricting its scope to the sheep who continue hearing/following.
The hardest texts for soft-OSAS (without “never saved”) are Heb 6:4–6; Heb 10:26–29; 2 Pet 2:20–22. These are the ones where the “reward/discipline only” reading feels least like the plain sense to many careful readers.

That does not prove Arminianism, but it does mean: if you demand the minimum number of category shifts, the warning texts often exert more gravitational pull than people expect.

If you want the cleanest “decider” exercise

Take Heb 10:29 and force each side to answer one question without importing extra systems:

In that clause, does “the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified” most naturally refer to a person with genuine covenant standing in Christ—or can it naturally be reduced to a non-salvific sanctification such that final salvation is never in view?

How you answer that one question tends to determine which overall synthesis feels least strained.

QUESTION:

Yes, run that “decider” exercise on Heb 6:4–6, Heb 10:26–29, and 2 Pet 2:20–22 in a tight three-part audit: (1) what the text most naturally asserts, (2) what soft-OSAS must add to avoid salvation-loss, (3) what Arminianism must add to avoid undermining promise texts like John 10 and Romans 8.

ANSWER:

Below is the “decider” audit for Heb 6:4–6; Heb 10:26–29; 2 Pet 2:20–22 in the three parts you requested.

I am deliberately keeping the focus on (a) what the Greek most naturally communicates in-context, and then (b) what each system must add (category distinctions, scope restrictions, theological premises) to make the passage cohere with its broader doctrine.

1) Hebrews 6:4–6

(1) What the text most naturally asserts

Core clauses (ESV)

“It is impossible… in the case of those who have once been enlightened… have become partakers of the Holy Spirit… and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance…” (Heb 6:4–6, ESV).

Key Greek (NA28/UBS5)

“once enlightened”: ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας
“tasted the heavenly gift”: γευσαμένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου
“partakers of the Holy Spirit”: μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου
“tasted… word of God… powers of the age to come”: καλὸν γευσαμένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος
“and having fallen away”: καὶ παραπεσόντας
“impossible… to renew again to repentance”: ἀδύνατον… πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν
explanatory present participles: ἀνασταυροῦντας… καὶ παραδειγματίζοντας (“while they are crucifying again… and holding [him] up to contempt”).

Natural sense (tight)

The text describes a class who have had profound covenantal/spiritual experiences (most pointedly “partakers of the Holy Spirit”) and then fall away (παραπεσόντας), resulting in an impossibility of being “renewed again to repentance,” with the reason framed as an ongoing posture of repudiation (present participles).

What is “hard to deny” here: the cumulative descriptors sound like real participation, and “fallen away” plus “impossible to renew” reads like catastrophic spiritual finality, not a mild setback.

(2) What soft-OSAS must add to avoid salvation-loss (without “never saved”)

Soft-OSAS has to introduce at least one major category shift:

Add-on A: “Repentance” = restoration-to-maturity, not conversion-repentance

Claim: μετάνοια here is not “repent unto initial salvation,” but “repent unto restored fellowship/maturity,” i.e., a renewal from a hardened state back into fruitful Christian life.

Cost: the phrase “renew again to repentance” naturally reads like a fundamental spiritual turning, and Hebrews elsewhere uses very weighty categories; restricting it to “restore to usefulness” is possible but not the most immediate reading.

Add-on B: “Impossible” is practical/covenantal, not metaphysical soteriological

Claim: “impossible” describes the community’s inability to restore such persons (or the normal means are no longer effective), not that God cannot save/keep.

Cost: the text grounds the impossibility not in “you can’t counsel them,” but in their ongoing repudiation of the Son (the explanatory participles).

Add-on C: “Falling away” = severe apostasy in experience, but not loss of regeneration

Claim: a genuine believer can enter an apostate-like stance (public repudiation), placing themselves under severe discipline and irreversible hardening with respect to repentance/restoration in this life, yet their forensic standing remains.

Cost: Hebrews 6 reads like it is describing a salvation-adjacent reality (“age to come” powers; repentance renewal) rather than merely rewards.

In short: soft-OSAS can construct a coherent reading, but it must re-define the endpoint (what is lost) away from salvation to “repentant restoration/fruitfulness,” and re-locate the impossibility away from eschatological ruin to irreversible hardening in this age.

(3) What Arminianism must add to avoid undermining John 10 / Romans 8

Arminianism must show that strong promise texts are true without implying unconditional impossibility of apostasy.

Add-on A: Promise texts are class-defined (the believing/sheep-in-Christ class)

John 10’s “my sheep hear… follow” defines the referent; the promise is for those who are presently in that identity, not a metaphysical claim that apostasy cannot occur.
Romans 8:39 locates inseparability “in Christ Jesus”; Arminians often argue this is covenantal location language—remaining “in Christ” is maintained through continuing faith.

Cost: this introduces a conditionality that must be argued from the broader NT, not from John 10’s οὐ μή phrase alone.

Add-on B: “No one will snatch” addresses external threats; apostasy is self-repudiation

John 10 explicitly denies ἁρπάζειν (snatching) by others; it does not explicitly address the scenario of volitional repudiation.

Cost: Arminians must defend that this is not special pleading but a legitimate distinction between “external seizure” and “internal apostasy,” consistent with John’s own categories.

2) Hebrews 10:26–29

(1) What the text most naturally asserts

Core clauses (ESV)

“If we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment…” (10:26–27).
The offender has “profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified” and “outraged the Spirit of grace” (10:29).

Key Greek (NA28/UBS5)

“sinning deliberately” (ongoing): Ἑκουσίως ἁμαρτανόντων (present participle)
“after receiving the knowledge”: μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας
“no longer remains a sacrifice”: οὐκέτι… θυσία
“profaned the blood of the covenant”: κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης
“by which he was sanctified”: ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη
“outraged the Spirit of grace”: τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος ἐνυβρίσας

Natural sense (tight)

The text depicts a person with real exposure to gospel truth who persists in high-handed sin in a manner characterized as repudiation of Christ (trampling the Son; treating covenant blood as common; insulting the Spirit). The consequence language is judicial and fearsome (“judgment,” “fire,” “vengeance,” “the living God”).

What is “hard to deny” here: v.29’s covenantal triad—Son / blood / Spirit—paired with “by which he was sanctified” reads very naturally as a description of someone who stood within the covenant’s sanctifying efficacy and now repudiates it.

(2) What soft-OSAS must add to avoid salvation-loss (without “never saved”)

Soft-OSAS has to keep three phrases from implying final salvation-loss:

Add-on A: “Sanctified” (ἡγιάσθη) = covenantally set apart, not necessarily “justified”

Claim: the blood “sanctified” the person in the sense of covenant consecration (membership/identification), not necessarily regenerative union; or sanctified in standing but not in the sense that justification can be lost.

Cost: even if sanctification can be broader than justification, “by the blood of the covenant” strongly suggests soteriological sanctification, not merely social consecration. Soft-OSAS must argue that Hebrews can speak this strongly yet mean “set apart with privileges” rather than “finally saved.”

Add-on B: “No sacrifice remains” = no alternate remedy; discipline is inevitable

Claim: it does not mean Christ’s sacrifice ceases to cover a believer; it means if one repudiates Christ, there is no other sacrifice to turn to, so one must face severe covenant consequences (chastening/judgment) in this life.

Cost: the surrounding rhetoric looks eschatological (“fire that will consume adversaries,” v.27; “vengeance,” v.30–31), so relocating it to primarily temporal chastening requires additional argument.

Add-on C: The “judgment/fire” imagery is temporal-covenantal (or pertains to severe loss), not damnation

Claim: believers can be treated as God’s “adversaries” in experiential/covenantal terms and suffer devastating judgment (even death), plus maximal loss of inheritance/reward.

Cost: calling disciplined believers “adversaries” and using “consuming fire” language for merely temporal discipline is the least natural move here; it is not impossible, but it is a heavy interpretive burden.

(3) What Arminianism must add to avoid undermining John 10 / Romans 8

Arminianism must show how real apostasy warnings coexist with strong security assurances.

Add-on A: Security promises are covenant assurances for persevering believers, not unconditional metaphysical impossibilities

Romans 8’s “no separation” is read as describing the invincibility of God’s love against external powers and sufferings; it does not state that a believer cannot later repudiate Christ.
John 10 assures that the Shepherd’s grip cannot be defeated by any external force; it does not address willful covenant repudiation as in Heb 10.

Add-on B: Apostasy is not “ordinary sin”; it is covenant repudiation

Arminians typically restrict Heb 10’s scenario to deliberate, ongoing repudiation (not daily failures). That allows them to preserve both assurance and warning without collapsing assurance into anxiety.

3) 2 Peter 2:20–22

(1) What the text most naturally asserts

Core clauses (ESV)

“If, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled… the last state has become worse… It would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness…” (2 Pet 2:20–21).
Proverb images: dog returns to vomit; sow returns to mire (2:22).

Key Greek (NA28/UBS5)

“having escaped the defilements”: ἀποφυγόντες τὰ μιάσματα τοῦ κόσμου
“in/through the knowledge”: ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος…
“again entangled and overcome”: πάλιν ἐμπλακέντες… ἡττῶνται
“the last things worse than the first”: γέγονεν… τὰ ἔσχατα χείρονα τῶν πρώτων
“better not to have known… than after knowing to turn back”: κρεῖττον… μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι… ἢ ἐπιγνοῦσιν ὑποστρέψαι
“turn back from the holy commandment delivered”: ἐκ τῆς παραδοθείσης… ἁγίας ἐντολῆς

Natural sense (tight)

The text depicts real moral “escape” tied to “knowledge of the Lord and Savior,” followed by relapse and a worse final condition. The “better never to have known” line sounds like heightened culpability and a grim end-state.

What is “hard to deny” here: the coupling of escape + knowledge of Christ + turning back + worse end is naturally read as spiritual reversal with dire consequence.

(2) What soft-OSAS must add to avoid salvation-loss (without “never saved”)

This is the hardest of the three for soft-OSAS under your constraint, because the most common “out” is the excluded move (“they were never regenerate”). Without that, soft-OSAS must do the following:

Add-on A: “Worse end” = greater discipline/accountability, not damnation

Claim: “worse” refers to intensified temporal judgment, devastation, and/or maximal loss at the judgment of believers (loss of reward, shame), not loss of eternal life.

Cost: “better never to have known” strongly suggests a final-state evaluation more consistent with ultimate ruin than mere loss of reward.

Add-on B: “Knowledge” (ἐπίγνωσις) and “escape” can be real yet non-final salvifically

Claim: a believer can have real experiential knowledge and moral reformation (“escape defilements”) and yet fall into corruption; the text is warning about catastrophic relapse, not teaching loss of justification.

Cost: the proverb images (dog/sow) strongly imply unchanged nature. Soft-OSAS must explain why Peter uses nature-language proverbs if the persons have undergone regeneration.

Add-on C: The target is primarily false teachers, but the outcome described is discipline not loss

Claim: even if the passage is about teachers within the church, it can still describe severe ruin for those who abandon truth—without defining their eternal destiny.

Cost: the passage itself uses destiny-shaped language (“better never…”; “worse end”), so refusing any implication about final destiny feels evasive unless tightly argued.

(3) What Arminianism must add to avoid undermining John 10 / Romans 8

Arminianism must maintain that:

God’s promises of security are real,
Yet apostasy remains possible through repudiation.

They commonly add:

Add-on A: Promise texts describe God’s faithful protection and sufficiency, not the impossibility of rejecting Him

Romans 8 describes the invincibility of divine love against all external powers; it does not explicitly say a believer cannot later apostatize.
John 10 denies external snatching; it does not explicitly speak to willful turning back (ὑποστρέψαι) in 2 Peter’s terms.

Add-on B: “In Christ” and “sheep” identity is maintained by continuing faith

Arminianism will say: believers are secure as they abide in faith, but can later cease to be in that covenantal location by repudiation.

Cost: Arminians must articulate this without making assurance meaningless; they usually do this by distinguishing ordinary lapses from decisive apostasy.

Net “decider” outcome across the three texts (within your constraints)

Most resistant to soft-OSAS (no “never saved”): 2 Pet 2:20–22 (because dog/sow imagery + “better never to have known” + “worse end” presses toward unchanged nature and final ruin).
Most legally/judicially resistant: Heb 10:26–29 (because covenant-blood sanctification + triadic repudiation language looks like apostasy with final judgment).
Most participation-descriptor resistant: Heb 6:4–6 (because “partakers of the Holy Spirit” + “fallen away” + “impossible to renew” is hard to keep inside “reward/discipline only”).

And on the other side:

Arminianism can preserve John 10 / Rom 8 without “non-literalising” them by (i) reading them as covenant assurances for the believing/sheep-in-Christ class, and (ii) distinguishing external threat from internal repudiation. That is a real interpretive move, but it is not inherently a “softening” of the words—it is a scope claim.

Primary sources cited

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
Barbara Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
The Greek New Testament, 5th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014).