This is precisely the reason why I do not consider myself to be a pragmatic individual. I do not convey objective truth in a manner that allows one particular perspective to overshadow or diminish the opposing stance that emerges from an idealistic viewpoint. In my understanding, the third personal application of God's law serves as a political rationale for our hesitance and uncertainty. When it comes to our actions, I am hesitant to assert that we can be both transparent and just simultaneously. Divine grace, in its essence, is genuine and leads us toward righteousness through the mechanism of divine forgiveness, yet it also serves as an avenue for achieving complete righteousness. We attain perfect righteousness not because grace aids us in obeying the law, but rather because it envelops all of our transgressions and shortcomings. When we receive divine grace, we naturally position ourselves on the opposite side of sin, moral law, and death. The judicial authority of grace lies in the fact that we no longer cling to the belief that our own deeds render us righteous. We can indeed be perfectly just, yet we often fall short of that ideal. The empirical evidence of divine grace reveals to us a fundamental truth: we cannot achieve righteousness through our own efforts. We are inherently flawed and sinful, deserving of death, as the scriptures rightly affirm. The Bible does not articulate a third category of personal emotional interaction with the law, nor does it propose a third form of personal righteousness or a distinct type of Christian death. There exists only one form of divine justice, which is accurately recorded as an effective and timely adjudication. This represents a significant judicial acknowledgment that transcends mere mystical justice according to our subjective standards. There is no room for compromise or neutrality in this matter; the distinctions are clear and absolute.