That's exactly what I was saying. It seems the answer must be somewhere where all of Scripture is satisfied. Both positions seem to be stuck on the extreme. Reminds me of Republican vs Democrat.
If both positions had equally reasonable verses, then the problem would be that the Bible is conflicted, which I reject as heretical.
Therefore, how to proceed? The position that has the most clear and straightforward verses should be the truth. And the other position is using verses that do not support their view.
Is it possible that the Bible teaches both the possibility of loss of salvation and eternal security? I would hope everyone would agree that this is not possible.
So, if the loss of salvation position had any verse that plainly stated that there is a possibility to lose salvation, that should be the end of that.
However, that side doesn't have such a verse. What they provide are verses that are metaphors and use figures of speech, hardly what one could call plain and straightforward language.
The eternal security side DOES have such a verse. John 10:28 says plainly that those who have received eternal life shall never perish.
It totally amazes me how so many people seem to gloss over that verse, or try to use v.27 as some kind of "condition" for never perishing, which the language simply doesn't allow.
I call this desperation in trying to defend the view in spite of what Jesus said so clearly.
That is why I'm passionate about eternal security. Jesus left no doubts about it.
Those who have been given eternal life shall never perish because they are held in His and His Father's hand. If that isn't seen as security, then I don't know what is.
Jesus said it as plain as could be said. Those given eternal life shall never perish. And He then gave the reason why: recipients of ternal life are held in His hand. That is security.