Skip to content

Editorial standards

This project argues a case. That makes honesty a structural requirement, not a courtesy. These are the rules every file follows.

1. State the opposing view at its strongest

Every text file opens with a section titled "The OSAS reading" (or "The case for OSAS") that presents the position as its best defenders present it — not as a caricature, not as the weakest blog comment you can find. Use the actual arguments of Calvin, Owen, Warfield, Hodge, Murray, Packer, Sproul, Piper, White, Grudem, Schreiner, Beale, MacArthur, Hodges, Ryrie, Chafer, or the Westminster and Dort confessions, as appropriate to the version of OSAS under discussion.

If a file cannot state the other side so that an OSAS reader would say "yes, that is my view," the file is not ready.

Do not use the following as if they were arguments:

  • "OSAS is a license to sin."
  • "OSAS makes God a liar."
  • "They just want a comfortable religion."
  • Guilt by association with a particular scandalous teacher.
  • Claims about what "all OSAS people" think.

2. Quote only what you can source

  • Verified quotations get quotation marks, a citation with book/chapter/section or page, and a link where available.
  • Unverified but widely reported wording gets a "reportedly" or is paraphrased.
  • Paraphrase gets no quotation marks and an inline citation to the document.
  • Never construct a sentence and put it in a dead theologian's mouth.

Translations matter. Unless otherwise noted, Scripture is quoted in the ESV; where a translation difference carries the argument, the file says so and gives the Greek or an alternative rendering.

Every direct quotation from a non-Scripture source is logged in 09-reference/08-quotation-notes.md with one of three statuses: verified, probable, paraphrase. When in doubt, downgrade.

3. Argue from the text, not from the system

The casebook's core complaint against OSAS exegesis is that it imports distinctions the text does not contain — a "never really saved" rule, a "loss of reward only" rule, a "faith that cannot fail" definition, an "eternal life that cannot be forfeited" premise. The casebook must not commit the mirror-image error. So:

  • Show the syntax, the flow of the argument, the antecedent of pronouns, the Old Testament quotation and its original context.
  • Distinguish what the text says, what the text implies, and what a system infers.
  • When the casebook makes an inference, label it as one.
  • Say when a text is ambiguous and when the case rests on the wider canonical pattern rather than on a single verse.

4. Distinguish the schools

"OSAS" is a family, not a person. Files should specify which position is being addressed:

Label Roughly
Classical Reformed perseverance The elect are kept by God through faith; they may fall grievously and temporarily lose assurance, but never totally or finally. Assurance is grounded in election and evidenced by fruit.
Westminster federalism Covenant theology, definite atonement, perseverance as a decree; warning passages are means of preservation.
Popular eternal security "Once you have prayed the prayer / believed, nothing can ever change your standing, even if you stop believing or live in sin." Often more confident than the confessions.
Free Grace theology Assurance is grounded in the finished work of Christ and the promise of eternal life; repentance and obedience are not conditions of salvation, only of discipleship and reward. (Hodges, Ryrie, Chafer's heirs.)
"Carnal Christian" synthesis A believer may live an entire post-conversion life in unbroken carnality and still be saved; the "spiritual" life is a second-level option.
Hyper-Calvinism Denies duty-faith and the free offer; not representative, but a consistent edge of the system.

A criticism that lands on Free Grace is not automatically a criticism of Piper. A criticism that lands on Piper is not automatically a criticism of Hodges. Say which.

5. The tone rules

  • Attack arguments, never souls. Assume OSAS people are brothers and sisters who are wrong on this, not enemies.
  • No mockery of the dead. No gleeful quoting of a "license to sin" slogan as a trophy.
  • No political framing. This is not a left/right issue and should not be recruited into one.
  • No "cult" language. OSAS is a theological tradition with serious exegetes. Say "the system has a problem here," not "OSAS people are deceptive."
  • Concede what is true. The new birth is real. God keeps his people. Assurance is real. The finished work of Christ is complete. The casebook's argument is about what kind of keeping and how abiding works, not whether God is faithful.
  • Pastoral register. Write as a pastor explaining a text to a congregation, not as a prosecutor.

6. Every text file uses the same shape

  1. Front matter — title, passage, osas_claim, short_answer, tags.
  2. The text — the passage, quoted fairly and in context.
  3. The OSAS reading — steel-manned.
  4. The problems — numbered, each with a heading, each argued from the text or from the system's own commitments.
  5. The abiding reading — a positive account of what the text does teach, including what it teaches about God's initiative and keeping.
  6. What this does and does not prove — intellectual honesty about scope.
  7. Further reading and See also cross-links.

The full template is in _meta/TEMPLATE.md.

Every file links to at least three related files using relative Markdown links. The Scripture index and the two part indexes must stay in sync when files are added. Run python scripts/check_links.py before committing.

8. What the casebook does not claim

  • It does not claim that OSAS believers are unregenerate.
  • It does not claim that the doctrine has produced no good fruit.
  • It does not claim that every person who sins has lost salvation. It distinguishes stumbling from abandonment, backsliding from apostasy, and struggle from defiant unbelief.
  • It does not claim that continuing in Christ is a meritorious work. It is the life of faith, not the wage of works.
  • It does not claim that the warning passages are easy or that every interpretation is settled. It claims that the most natural readings are the ones that take the warnings as real.