This is a very common argument Protestants use to try to circumvent the irrationality of the “once saved, always saved” position. The most striking thing about it is that if they genuinely believe that a person may have just “not been saved,” then it completely refutes the entire position because it shows that the concept of being “saved” is subjective, and that a person may not have “been saved” no matter how much they may have believed themselves to be.
To be honest, I am incapable of understanding how someone who professes to have read the Bible can hold the OSAS position, as Christ speaks frequently about people falling away, and the lukewarm (who, in Protestant circles would still have said the sinners prayer and accept Christ as their Lord and savior; the two criteria they cite for “being saved”) who will be spit out form the mouth of God due to their lukewarmness. St. Paul writes often about those who, once faithful, have now fallen away and as such have put themselves in a perilous spiritual position; and even write about how he is still “working out [his] salvation with fear and trembling.”
The OSAS position is completely unbilbical; so people who profess must resort to irrational justifications when the obvious flaws in the their logic are pointed out.
