I want to stress that our exploration of this topic does not adhere to the rigid standards of a precise science. This raises a significant question: how can we articulate three unique yet perfectly harmonious representations of the Trinity without falling into the trap of redundancy? To truly encompass every conceivable entity is to engage directly with the profound mystery of the divine. In this framework, everything that God has consistently created for good—including the existence of sin—plays an integral role in achieving unity. Each aspect contributes meaningfully to a greater purpose by weaving together all conceivable elements. However, it is also true that those who yield to sin, despite their inherent vulnerabilities, rightfully invoke in us a dual response of deep compassion and divine outrage. God has crafted us in such a way that we can reconcile all facets of existence through a nuanced understanding of sin, which in turn enables us to thrive collectively as our community expands. Thus, we maintain the conviction that the exercise of free will is graciously permitted. The notion of functional diversity is not simply justified; it is essential to the divine unity we seek to articulate, rather than being a mere afterthought. The voluntary actions of the Trinity, which tenderly align with moral principles, serve to unify the soul in a profound way. Admittedly, I find myself somewhat bewildered by this intricate matter. Nevertheless, the core of our precise understanding hinges on the concept of the Trinity, which is shaped by our desire to grasp divine unity. This holds true unless we mistakenly consider ourselves to be infallible. Would you agree that the Holy Spirit is entirely subordinate to Christ, and that the Son is completely subordinate to the Father, even within the framework of their oneness? The Apostle Paul skillfully distinguishes between the different persons of the Trinity, yet he consistently avoids evaluating anyone solely through a physical or corporeal lens. If we possess the ability to make such distinctions, why does the Apostle return to his original assertion? I argue that it is because differentiation often invites blame and potential condemnation. Yet, as the Apostle asserts, "who can accuse the elect?" In my perspective, there are fundamentally only two authentic categories: the sanctified and the mortal. Ultimately, all existence can be distilled into the stark dichotomy of life and eternal death. This understanding clarifies why various addictions often represent distorted identities rather than merely contentious struggles with negativity. We exist in a world that starkly contrasts with the uniform mindset often found within misguided political discourse. By acknowledging our complete dependence on the divine, we paradoxically reclaim the highest degree of freedom to act wisely. When we accurately evaluate the moral landscape surrounding us, we become equipped to confront destructive forces as we prepare to engage with the divine message within its rightful context. This context is defined by the careful way in which we differentiate between these two distinct groups, allowing us to navigate the complexities of existence with greater clarity and purpose.