Does it mean anything that much of the New Testament was written to Christians who were undergoing persecutions and trials and were being encouraged to stand firm, endure, and be strong in their faith? Why encourage someone to not fall away if it is impossible? The old once saved always saved argument says if someone falls away they were never saved to begin with. If you apply that argument to the New Testament you have to say Peter, Paul and others are writing to people who appear saved but who are actually lost, encouraging them to not do what they are destined to do anyway. It would also have to say they are encouraging saved people not to do what they cannot do anyway – fall away. That sounds like gibberish and just doesn’t work out.
What do you do with passages like 2 Timothy 2:11-13 which says, “Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us; if we are faithless; he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.” Why the need to endure if there is no possibility to fall away? Why mention disowning God if it cannot be done? Why through out a consequence – being disowned if it isn’t really a possibility.
I have heard people say there is more in the New Testament for eternal security than against it. The problem is God can see the whole picture. He doesn’t work in the realm of time. We operate in the realm of time. This discrepancy is the reason people try to argue if someone falls away they must have never been saved to begin with.
What do you do with passages like Hebrews 6:4-6? Sounds like saved person to me? Is it really impossible? Because we see people fall away and come back. Is he overstating the probability to make his case for the need to remain a Christian?