Yes, an industrial strength no brainer. :) No one is forced against his will, no one is tricked, or anything like that.
Can I ask on what basis this choice is made? Also, what is it precisely that makes one off/on, saved?
My view is that the basis of the choice is the perceived need of God. As lost people in our sinful natures we perceive having no real need for God and utterly reject Him. Once God removes from us our heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh, then we realize that we do need God.
Maybe this structure: One minute one is not saved, the next minute, or two let's say, he is saved. What happened internally and externally in that time?
Normally, and within time, one moves from unsaved to saved by a conscious (informed) decision to admit one's need to God and accept Christ into the person's life as Lord and Savior. This is usually accomplished by some form of the "sinner's prayer".
Internally, among other things, the Holy Spirit has indwelt, and the person is "set free". Sanctification also begins at this time. Externally, the fruits of that sanctification should start to manifest themselves, but that does not always start immediately. If after saying the sinner's prayer, a person simply goes back to a sinful life and no change apparently takes place for a period of time, then that is evidence that the person's prayer was not efficacious, i.e. not sincere. It's not proof, since only God and the person can be certain, and sanctification takes place according to the time table of the Spirit, which varies from person to person. If the person goes back to the same sinful life permanently, then that approaches "proof". POTS says that won't happen for the truly saved.
As I'm comparing it now, it seems to me-this part we're talking about-could be, in my terms a "conversion experience" and salvation as something ongoing. This for example:
It's not proof, since only God and the person can be certain, and sanctification takes place according to the time table of the Spirit, which varies from person to person. If the person goes back to the same sinful life permanently, then that approaches "proof". POTS says that won't happen for the truly saved.
It's after the fact knowledge and it could be efficacious in varying degrees over time, long, short, up and down, spirals..
The knowledge of it I'm speaking of, looking back, in hindsight. You would say, 'he wasn't really saved then', we might say, he stepped off the path then. In a manner of looking at it, it's just a different way of framing the time.
I realize you're making distinct theological differences; I'm looking at it as comparative religion.
And interesting thing, to me, is that all religions I'm fairly familiar with have an internal argument about "gradual vs. sudden": whether salvation (enlightenment, etc..) occurs at once or over time, some call it an educational enlightment, though I don't like the term.
So, for a while at least I'll view our differences on this as gradual vs. sudden and compare the saved experience you describe with the conversion experience I'm familiar with.
It's a difference in how you categorize things and how you look at time. In the scheme of time, both are but a flit anyway.
Thanks very much for your explanations.