I'm trying to think of an illustration of how stupid that thought is. I remember working with the generation that had just returned from Vietnam. At 18 I was in a generation enough not to be drafted into this war. But he once was interested in the war. so I guess I pressed him to tell the stories. I certainly remember feeling frustrated when they spoke frankly about the established rules of this war. In short, one of those rules was that there was an imaginary line that US troops were not allowed to cross. So basically we advanced to defeat the enemy and then retreated to follow the rules. I remember the family story of them talking bitterly about conquering that hill and then having to leave it again only to climb the hill again to take it. The reason was that they had to play by the rules. I sincerely believe this is a practical illustration. of two-line theology. Anyone who has studied philosophy recognizes the law of non contradiction. It essentially states that something cannot be authentic and inauthentic at the same time when dealing with the same context. In other words, as far as two lines are concerned, one can be guilty and not guilty at the same time in the same context. You can be active and passive in the same context, you can consider the potential of being spiritually whole and not whole in the same context at the same time. And yet we only teach in this peculiar way that usually lacks any real logic, and pride oneself on adequately upholding the most extraordinary standards of fundamental truth. Who simply of logical contradictions teaches that good is bad and bad is good. When you say that we are competent and evil at the same time in the same context. The possibility of free choice between two identical forces, like the arbitrary definition of free will that you simply teach, makes us grasp desperately for the political winds you are describing. Real experience of notable success or failure in our active lives. The reality is that we are undoubtedly still a responsible person describing one experience. We don't just imagine that we are on the top of the little hill and on the flat ground at the same time. The Christian life carefully manipulates functional language to accurately describe historical reality. What we capture with our expressive mouths is what is in our faithful hearts. If we glorify ourselves in logical contradictions for universally holding to two lines and then condemn "modern mystics," we are simply hypocrites. The notion that falsely shows that God is simply a potential love-hate relationship that he offers. If He could potentially act, we could never have sincere hope, faith, love, and unity. We could not fully trust a personal God. We would simply refer to due diligence as a desperate desire rather than an appropriate action. The two lines simply teach God as the guy who badly needs the carrot. To constantly teach that we must face opposite sides in one truth. The only thing we know in personal relationships is a correct description of give and take. But we lovingly know that God shows salvation, no doubt intending to make us fully successful as we sincerely desire.