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.
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.
Yes, this is pretty much how I see it as well. And, we each base our views on the totality of our respective authorities. I'm not sure if I'm following you on the reference to time frame, though. We make it a point to never declare that we can know about the salvation of anyone else. So, if you tell me you are saved, I am fine with believing you and treating you as if it was a certainty. I am fine in continuing with this until you give me good reason to change my mind. For example, if today you tell me you renounce God and go on to live a sinful life, and if you continue to do that for the next 40 years until your death, then I might change my mind. I might say "then you were never saved". The ONLY thing that really means concerning time is that my initial "guess" was wrong. Nothing changed in you in terms of time. Fortunately, of course, this example is a total fantasy. :)
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 enlightenment, though I don't like the term.
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Could you give an example?