My concern pertains to the perspective that asserts our salvation through grace, which is accompanied by the assurance of its attainment. However, a parallel aspect of this viewpoint, akin to flipping a coin, pertains to sanctification. I cannot establish a connection between this autonomy and the biblical teachings. This phenomenon serves as the foundation of American pedagogy.The statement is often reiterated to the extent that it becomes a universally accepted concept among those who align with this particular perspective. Even if Americans are incorrect in terms of doctrine, it is not appropriate to link their views to sanctification when the situation is reversed.In America, we all seem to have different beliefs, but ultimately, we share the same core values. However, we tend to disagree on the basics, which can lead to spiritual confusion. When we separate salvation from sanctification, we ignore important warnings and overlook the inclusive messages of scripture. This moderate approach to religion is prevalent in American politics.The notion of moving on in situations where there is disagreement on the inspiration of the entire scripture is akin to the stench of a dead skunk. It is impossible to act correctly when our actions are rooted in heretical beliefs. It is not sufficient to simply agree and set aside the truth for the sake of unity. The purpose of our writing should not be to express differing opinions and falsely believe that we are all right in our agreement.The objective of written communication is to achieve maximum accuracy in our comprehension of biblical texts. It is incorrect to suggest that the majority of biblical content is enigmatic, and therefore open to contradiction and selective interpretation. Such an approach constitutes thoughtless discourse, as each and every word of scripture is subject to scrutiny and evaluation.The language we use has a significant impact. When we fragment the Christian experience, present it as a series of prescribed steps, or shy away from contentious issues in favor of consensus, we are effectively controlling the trajectory of our lives. The notion that sanctification can be achieved through a series of moral steps lacks sufficient scriptural support. Ultimately, the sole objective of human existence is to derive pleasure from God while simultaneously glorifying Him.The partition of one's life based on personal choices is not a prevalent practice. Rationality is not the sole driving force behind one's actions. The advancement of faith is not a matter of following a set of instructions, but rather a reflection of one's experiences. The approach to prayer is tailored to individual experiences and is not always consistent. The Psalmist demonstrates varying approaches to communicating with God in each psalm, and does not simply document raw experiences. The primary objective of the Psalmist is to impart wisdom, and the writing is not solely influenced by the situation at hand.The author aims to elucidate his approach for surmounting obstacles and embracing the enigmatic aspects of life, which he perceives as a salvation that surpasses imagination. He cautions that construing salvation as a mere sequence of steps, a rigid set of regulations, or a demonstration of free will would amount to a distortion of the divine Trinity that believers worship. Instead, he advocates for a holistic depiction of the Christian journey that encompasses both salvation and sanctification, and integrates the internal and external aspects of the experience. The author maintains his commitment to referencing scriptural texts in his writing.