Crossing the Bridge of Hope

[Truthstalker]

The difference between Calvinism, er, Christianity, explained the professor, is that in C.e.C. (big hint: he is a Calvinist professor) God did all the work. He built the bridge. Other religions are man striving to meet God. In CeC God came to meet man. In other religions God may have built a bridge, but it was only part way over an infinite void.

Why no, thought I. In Catholicism, for example, God built the bridge, and man walks across it only in cooperative grace. That is to say, any ability he has to cross the bridge, and any achievement in crossing it, are the work of God, not man, so then in this narrow matter Catholics are Calvinists. All we have is a gift from God, nothing is from ourselves, so that we cannot boast. In this, I think, Calvinists and Catholics agree. Am I right?

Whether Calvinism is Christianity is not the point of this thread. Are non-Calvinists willing to say that whatever cooperation they are required to have is solely a gift of God, and not something that they can boast in? Or is man good enough on his own to merit salvation without resorting to the finished work of Jesus Christ? Or does God make man, in the course of justification, good so that Jesus’ work on the cross is irrelevant?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The difference between Calvinism, er, Christianity, explained the professor, is that in C.e.C. (big hint: he is a Calvinist professor) God did all the work. He built the bridge. Other religions are man striving to meet God. In CeC God came to meet man. In other religions God may have built a bridge, but it was only part way over an infinite void.

Why no, thought I. In Catholicism, for example, God built the bridge, and man walks across it only in cooperative grace. That is to say, any ability he has to cross the bridge, and any achievement in crossing it, are the work of God, not man, so then in this narrow matter Catholics are Calvinists. All we have is a gift from God, nothing is from ourselves, so that we cannot boast. In this, I think, Calvinists and Catholics agree. Am I right?

Whether Calvinism is Christianity is not the point of this thread. Are non-Calvinists willing to say that whatever cooperation they are required to have is solely a gift of God, and not something that they can boast in? Or is man good enough on his own to merit salvation without resorting to the finished work of Jesus Christ? Or does God make man, in the course of justification, good so that Jesus’ work on the cross is irrelevant?

Man cannot be saved without God’s grace.

However, man is capable of rejecting God’s grace.

God wants all men to be saved, but we must cooperate with his grace in order to persevere and make it to heaven.

Jesus will not leave us, but we can leave him.

 

[tGette]

The difference between Calvinism, er, Christianity, explained the professor, is that in C.e.C. (big hint: he is a Calvinist professor) God did all the work. He built the bridge. Other religions are man striving to meet God. In CeC God came to meet man. In other religions God may have built a bridge, but it was only part way over an infinite void.

Why no, thought I. In Catholicism, for example, God built the bridge, and man walks across it only in cooperative grace. That is to say, any ability he has to cross the bridge, and any achievement in crossing it, are the work of God, not man, so then in this narrow matter Catholics are Calvinists. All we have is a gift from God, nothing is from ourselves, so that we cannot boast. In this, I think, Calvinists and Catholics agree. Am I right?

Whether Calvinism is Christianity is not the point of this thread. Are non-Calvinists willing to say that whatever cooperation they are required to have is solely a gift of God, and not something that they can boast in? Or is man good enough on his own to merit salvation without resorting to the finished work of Jesus Christ? Or does God make man, in the course of justification, good so that Jesus’ work on the cross is irrelevant?

Everything, of course, can only be attributed to God’s grace allowing it to happen.

Does that mean God is “forcing” us to cross this bridge? No.
Does that mean Satan is just part of God’s mighty and sovereign plan? No.

We can boast…if we want…that is why we have free will. Should we boast? Of course not! That is the duty of the faith-filled, to recognize all their efforts are a gift from God. Again, does this mean God is “forcing” us to do His bidding? No!

We are not required to cooperate, this, again, is the beauty of free will.

Non-Calvinists (as you put it) do not boast of their cooperation, they just see it as their Christian duty. Because without their cooperation the faith cannot be passed on.

Does this mean that Christianity will not prosper without these people cooperating? No!
Though, God would still need to find someone else who WILL cooperate.

Salvation was and is for humanity. This means humanity has to play a part in it.

By the grace of God, I am praying that I will soon cross the threshold of hope. By the grace of God, I know that the bridge is there. By the grace of God, I will do what I can to cross that bridge.

By the grace of God, I will slip up and sin on the way. By the grace of God, I will persevere and prosper.

By the grace of God, My works are no long “filthy rags” because I live a life in Christ and He redeems me and makes me righteous. Thus, now, by the grace of God, the works I do are done because I am a new person in Christ.

If I relied SOLELY on my works and did not rely on the grace of God (or recognize that it was the grace of God), then yes, they would be “filthy rags”. Instead, the Almighty God has washed my rags and they are no longer filthy!

By the grace of God, may He Bless us all abundantly!

May His Peace be with us all!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The difference between Calvinism, er, Christianity, explained the professor, is that in C.e.C. (big hint: he is a Calvinist professor) God did all the work. He built the bridge. Other religions are man striving to meet God. In CeC God came to meet man. In other religions God may have built a bridge, but it was only part way over an infinite void.

Why no, thought I. In Catholicism, for example, God built the bridge, and man walks across it only in cooperative grace. That is to say, any ability he has to cross the bridge, and any achievement in crossing it, are the work of God, not man, so then in this narrow matter Catholics are Calvinists. All we have is a gift from God, nothing is from ourselves, so that we cannot boast. In this, I think, Calvinists and Catholics agree. Am I right?

I don’t think so - because no Calvinist would admit any co-operation: rightly too. “Inter-operation”, possibly. If you emphasised the sole activity of God in salvation, at every stage & point of it, you might get agreement The problem is the appearance of separate activity by man, as though he were autonomous, so could act apart from God.​

Whether Calvinism is Christianity is not the point of this thread. Are non-Calvinists willing to say that whatever cooperation they are required to have is solely a gift of God, and not something that they can boast in?

That’s almost the view taken by Augustine against the Pelagians at the end of his life - I’ll take it, as long as the sole activity of God is emphasised. Salvation is totally a gift - it is not a thing deserved or earned. The primacy of God’s Grace has to be preserved & emphasised - otherwise we end up with a man-centred salvation, not one that is wholly the work of God, Who is a God of Grace from beginning to end. ​

Or is man good enough on his own to merit salvation without resorting to the finished work of Jesus Christ?

A googolplex of times (& then some): No ! - never, noway, nowhen, nohow, not in any manner whatever. Salvation is of its very nature the work of Christ: it is not, could not be, cannot be, anyone’s but His, & His Alone. If another does it, it is not salvation. It cannot possibly have any other source.​

Or does God make man, in the course of justification, good so that Jesus’ work on the cross is irrelevant?

No, never. Justification is through the Cross - it is the only way to reconciliation with God. This underlines the extreme importance of our communion in the Body of Christ, of which the Mass is the liturgical expression. No Cross indispensable to justification = no Mass.​

 

[ralphinal]

If you don’t like the bridge, you cant ry to swim. Or not cross it. Or look for another way across.

God put it there, we must choose to cross it. There is no plan b.

 

[manualman]

Calvinists are interesting folks. They correctly note that an awful lot of people seem to be deluded into believing that they can be good enough to objectively “earn” heaven. But instead of just pointing out how hilarious that concept is, they instead concoct an equally hilarious theology in which what we DO doesn’t even matter.

The problem with Calvinism is that they so thoroughly reject the idea of “earning heaven” that they also throw out the concept of free will. A Calvinist heaven is one populated by enslaved robots, unable to sin because they are CONTROLLED by God, not perfected by freely chosen Grace.

 

[Truthstalker]

Is your cooperation a gift of God or something that you supply with your own strength? It seems to me it would be a gift of God. Final perseverance is regarded as a gift of God, I believe, in Catholicism. If that is true then Catholics should consider themselves Calvinists, as God dispenses that gift, and He dispenses it as He chooses, that is, to the elect who make it to heaven.

 

[Truthstalker]

Calvinists are interesting folks. They correctly note that an awful lot of people seem to be deluded into believing that they can be good enough to objectively “earn” heaven. But instead of just pointing out how hilarious that concept is, they instead concoct an equally hilarious theology in which what we DO doesn’t even matter.

The problem with Calvinism is that they so thoroughly reject the idea of “earning heaven” that they also throw out the concept of free will. A Calvinist heaven is one populated by enslaved robots, unable to sin because they are CONTROLLED by God, not perfected by freely chosen Grace.

Another uninformed tirade at the same level of mythological truth as all those accusations that Catholics worship Mary. You should study Calvinism before posting such absurd straw men.

I wish you guys would learn to speak respectfully of others’ beliefs. This sort of thing leads me to think that you became Catholicout of contempt for all other beliefs, that you were insulted into being Catholic, and now you hope to use insult as an apologetic tool. Doesn’t work.

 

[Truthstalker]

I don’t think so - because no Calvinist would admit any co-operation: rightly too. “Inter-operation”, possibly. If you emphasised the sole activity of God in salvation, at every stage & point of it, you might get agreement The problem is the appearance of separate activity by man, as though he were autonomous, so could act apart from God.​

That’s almost the view taken by Augustine against the Pelagians at the end of his life - I’ll take it, as long as the sole activity of God is emphasised. Salvation is totally a gift - it is not a thing deserved or earned. The primacy of God’s Grace has to be preserved & emphasised - otherwise we end up with a man-centred salvation, not one that is wholly the work of God, Who is a God of Grace from beginning to end. ​

A googolplex of times (& then some): No ! - never, noway, nowhen, nohow, not in any manner whatever. Salvation is of its very nature the work of Christ: it is not, could not be, cannot be, anyone’s but His, & His Alone. If another does it, it is not salvation. It cannot possibly have any other source.​

No, never. Justification is through the Cross - it is the only way to reconciliation with God. This underlines the extreme importance of our communion in the Body of Christ, of which the Mass is the liturgical expression. No Cross indispensable to justification = no Mass.​

And yet God saves Catholics by making them good, so the argument goes, as the goodness becomes part of who they are. If that is true then the goal of sanctification is to make Christ irrelevant, as we are then saved by our goodness rather than by His.

All we have is the gift of God. The free will we have is a gift, yet we cannot choose rightly without God’s help, so in that sense our free will is only free will if God frees it to choose, and then it chooses God. We are turned from bondslaves of sin to slaves of Christ, and sons and heirs of the kingdom.

No effort of ours in any form will get us across the bridge. We cannot boast that we made it across the bridge by our own will or choice. So where does that leave the power of choice or will?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

And yet God saves Catholics by making them good, so the argument goes, as the goodness becomes part of who they are. If that is true then the goal of sanctification is to make Christ irrelevant, as we are then saved by our goodness rather than by His.

If Jesus Christ is the One Mediator of it, & if we have nothing that is not wholly His gift of grace to us, & if our very being is upheld only, & totally, by Him: then, He is necessarily & always relevant to us ​

Especially as His Working in us is not a static “filling-up”, as though we were glasses of water standing on a table doing nothing much, so much as - AFAICS - a dynamic & unceasing Self-giving of Himself through the Power of His Spirit. We are meant to be like that - the Saints are. He is not static - He “happens”: as C.S.Lewis says somewhere, ““God” is a verb”. Christ is eternally relevant, because He cannot cease to be essential to all created being, as it exists & is realised only by being in Him. He does not become more or less relevant to us: we become more or less able to be related to Him.

All we have is the gift of God. The free will we have is a gift, yet we cannot choose rightly without God’s help, so in that sense our free will is only free will if God frees it to choose, and then it chooses God. We are turned from bondslaves of sin to slaves of Christ, and sons and heirs of the kingdom.

Total agreement there ​

No effort of ours in any form will get us across the bridge. We cannot boast that we made it across the bridge by our own will or choice. So where does that leave the power of choice or will?

This is where putting together monergism & St. Thomas on real relations can be helpful.​

More briefly, as Chesterton noticed so brilliantly: God is the only personality in the OT. (That’s paraphrased of course ). Human freedom has no meaning outside that of God, ISTM - because God is absolute, there can be entities that are not God. The problem with synergism is that it defeats itself: by trying to “clear room” for creatures to be creatures independently of God, it makes God into a limited deity. ISTM there is a colossal paradox here: that the more strongly & entirely the Supremacy & Totality of God is insisted upon, the more “room” there is for creatures to be & to act. As to why this should be: Christian faith is a mass of paradoxes - one being, that we are most free when we are most totally enslaved to Christ. Again, this is visible in the Saints. A Christian is someone who is so little his own, that (as St. Paul reminds us), our very minds & bodies are not our own.

 

[manualman]

Actually, I spent four years of college studying with the Navigators, an evangelical protestant campus group with spiritual roots related to Calvinism. I may oversimplify for the sake of clarity, but underneath the fine words, Calvinism is not compatible with the catholic concept of free will and chosen cooperation with Grace.

 

[Truthstalker]

If Jesus Christ is the One Mediator of it, & if we have nothing that is not wholly His gift of grace to us, & if our very being is upheld only, & totally, by Him: then, He is necessarily & always relevant to us ​

Especially as His Working in us is not a static “filling-up”, as though we were glasses of water standing on a table doing nothing much, so much as - AFAICS - a dynamic & unceasing Self-giving of Himself through the Power of His Spirit. We are meant to be like that - the Saints are. He is not static - He “happens”: as C.S.Lewis says somewhere, ““God” is a verb”. Christ is eternally relevant, because He cannot cease to be essential to all created being, as it exists & is realised only by being in Him. He does not become more or less relevant to us: we become more or less able to be related to Him.

Total agreement there ​

This is where putting together monergism & St. Thomas on real relations can be helpful.​

More briefly, as Chesterton noticed so brilliantly: God is the only personality in the OT. (That’s paraphrased of course ). Human freedom has no meaning outside that of God, ISTM - because God is absolute, there can be entities that are not God. The problem with synergism is that it defeats itself: by trying to “clear room” for creatures to be creatures independently of God, it makes God into a limited deity. ISTM there is a colossal paradox here: that the more strongly & entirely the Supremacy & Totality of God is insisted upon, the more “room” there is for creatures to be & to act. As to why this should be: Christian faith is a mass of paradoxes - one being, that we are most free when we are most totally enslaved to Christ. Again, this is visible in the Saints. A Christian is someone who is so little his own, that (as St. Paul reminds us), our very minds & bodies are not our own.

You post well, as always.

This reminds me of Aquinas on the simplicity of God. You cannot separate His mind from His will from His being from His action. He is and does. His past and future and present are all one.

Calvinism accepts the paradox of God preordaining free wills to His sovereignty. I have suspicions that Catholicism does, too, only there is a lot of “triumph of the will” garbage going on that is dangerously close to semi-Pelagianism. Aquinas declared that the number of the elect (those who will arrive in heaven) is fixed and cannot be altered, yet he also admitted free will. Many Catholics on CAF seem to reject predestination and the sovereignty of God as Protestant heresies, which makes me wonder what is really being taught in the CC.

Which is more Catholic?

If I am predestined to heaven, I cannot freely choose hell.
If I am predestined to heaven, I will not freely choose hell, by the grace of God.
God is sovereign over all my free choices.
Predestination is only another term for foreknowledge.

And the fine line between Catholic thought and Calvinism on this issue eludes me.

 

[Thing]

You post well, as always.

This reminds me of Aquinas on the simplicity of God. You cannot separate His mind from His will from His being from His action. He is and does. His past and future and present are all one.

Calvinism accepts the paradox of God preordaining free wills to His sovereignty. I have suspicions that Catholicism does, too, only there is a lot of “triumph of the will” garbage going on that is dangerously close to semi-Pelagianism. Aquinas declared that the number of the elect (those who will arrive in heaven) is fixed and cannot be altered, yet he also admitted free will. Many Catholics on CAF seem to reject predestination and the sovereignty of God as Protestant heresies, which makes me wonder what is really being taught in the CC.

Which is more Catholic?

If I am predestined to heaven, I cannot freely choose hell.
If I am predestined to heaven, I will not freely choose hell, by the grace of God.
God is sovereign over all my free choices.
Predestination is only another term for foreknowledge.

And the fine line between Catholic thought and Calvinism on this issue eludes me.

I always thought Calvanism taught predestination for all, as opposed to Catholicisms predestination being within the bounds of possibility for God for a few if He so wishes. For example a Calvanist man from birth is predestined, or predecided, or pre-sent, to hell or to heaven.

Catholicism believes that what Christ said is true, that He came into the world to save sinners - who otherwise, I suppose, would have been lost.

Christ is recorded as saying things to people like ‘Your Love Has Saved You’, This to me, at least indicated that to Christ it was the quality of the persons response to His offer and to Him that determined their fate, and not that their fate was pre-decided, so rendering useless any dialogue between man and God or rendering useless any decision of man in response to God.

 

[Truthstalker]

I always thought Calvanism taught predestination for all, as opposed to Catholicisms predestination being within the bounds of possibility for God for a few if He so wishes. For example a Calvanist man from birth is predestined, or predecided, or pre-sent, to hell or to heaven.

Not all Calvinists accept double predestination (which is the belief that God deliberately selects some for heaven and deliberately selects others for hell. I think Catholics accept single predestination, in which God selects some to be saved and passes over the rest.

Is it our choice to be saved? Will those in heaven crow over those in hell, boasting that they chose rightly? I don’t think so.

Christ is recorded as saying things to people like ‘Your Love Has Saved You’, This to me, at least indicated that to Christ it was the quality of the persons response to His offer and to Him that determined their fate, and not that their fate was pre-decided, so rendering useless any dialogue between man and God or rendering useless any decision of man in response to God.

Actually He said “your faith have saved you.” And we know that faith is a gift from God. In Catholic theology there is prevenient or actual grace, which is given before human right action can occur. Only with God’s action can we be saved; without it we are lost.

We respond to God correctly in grace only when He has coached us to do so.

Please show me where in the Catholic catechism your statements can be found.

 

[Thing]

Not all Calvinists accept double predestination (which is the belief that God deliberately selects some for heaven and deliberately selects others for hell. I think Catholics accept single predestination, in which God selects some to be saved and passes over the rest.

Is it our choice to be saved? Will those in heaven crow over those in hell, boasting that they chose rightly? I don’t think so.

Actually He said “your faith have saved you.” And we know that faith is a gift from God. In Catholic theology there is prevenient or actual grace, which is given before human right action can occur. Only with God’s action can we be saved; without it we are lost.

We respond to God correctly in grace only when He has coached us to do so.

Please show me where in the Catholic catechism your statements can be found.

I’ll show you in His words below that; 'Hence in a true conversion are joined faith, hope, love, sorrow for sin, and other pious dispositions. ’

42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me:

34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

15 If you love me, keep my commandments.

25 And behold a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him, and saying, Master, what must I do to possess eternal life?

26 But he said to him: What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 He answering, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said to him: Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;

And Jesus answering, said to him: Simon, I have somewhat to say to thee. But he said: Master, say it.

41 A certain creditor had two debtors, the one who owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. 42 And whereas they had not wherewith to pay, he forgave them both. Which therefore of the two loveth him most? 43 Simon answering, said: I suppose that he to whom he forgave most. And he said to him: Thou hast judged rightly. 44 And turning to the woman, he said unto Simon: Dost thou see this woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she with tears hath washed my feet, and with her hairs hath wiped them. 45 Thou gavest me no kiss; but she, since she came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint; but she with ointment hath anointed my feet. 47 Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. 48 And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee. 49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves: Who is this that forgiveth sins also? 50 And he said to the woman: Thy faith hath made thee safe, go in peace.

'Hence in a true conversion are joined faith, hope, love, sorrow for sin, and other pious dispositions. ’

Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. 48 And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee.

Which was why I said, previously, that;

"This to me, at least indicated that to Christ it was the quality of the persons response to His offer and to Him that determined their fate, and not that their fate was pre-decided, so rendering useless any dialogue between man and God or rendering useless any decision of man in response to God. "

 

[Truthstalker]

Hence in a true conversion are joined faith, hope, love, sorrow for sin, and other pious dispositions. ’

And what is the source of those pious dispositions? Are not these things that God works in us?

Before we can will to do good God works in us. Before we can choose to will to do good He has already acted on our will so we can choose and so we can will.

To say that we can will good on our own, apart from the grace of God, is to come very, very close to a Pelagian position.

 

[Thing]

And what is the source of those pious dispositions? Are not these things that God works in us?

Before we can will to do good God works in us. Before we can choose to will to do good He has already acted on our will so we can choose and so we can will.

To say that we can will good on our own, apart from the grace of God, is to come very, very close to a Pelagian position.

You’ve said it yourself - you can choose.

Calvinistic predestination takes away your choice and the value of your response.
God prepares good works for us, He gives us actual grace to perform those works, but He also give us the free will to choose to act on His gifts or not.
He calls and as everyone knows, nobody comes to Him unless He draws them, but ultimately its our choice to respond or not, or, to respond well or not so well.
Predestination-for-all must remove all of that, and I cannot believe that when all those people who asked Christ - what they must do to be saved - that He told them, you are predestined to hell, there is no hope for you. What He actually told them was to DO what He said and they would be saved. Not, you are already saved but if its ok with you do what I say.
Their salvation was, He said - not me, dependant on their actions, their response, - this do, and thou shalt live.

 

[Through_Him]

The difference between Calvinism, er, Christianity, explained the professor, is that in C.e.C. (big hint: he is a Calvinist professor) God did all the work. He built the bridge. Other religions are man striving to meet God. In CeC God came to meet man. In other religions God may have built a bridge, but it was only part way over an infinite void.

Why no, thought I. In Catholicism, for example, God built the bridge, and man walks across it only in cooperative grace. That is to say, any ability he has to cross the bridge, and any achievement in crossing it, are the work of God, not man, so then in this narrow matter Catholics are Calvinists. All we have is a gift from God, nothing is from ourselves, so that we cannot boast. In this, I think, Calvinists and Catholics agree. Am I right?

Whether Calvinism is Christianity is not the point of this thread. Are non-Calvinists willing to say that whatever cooperation they are required to have is solely a gift of God, and not something that they can boast in? Or is man good enough on his own to merit salvation without resorting to the finished work of Jesus Christ? Or does God make man, in the course of justification, good so that Jesus’ work on the cross is irrelevant?

I believe God became the flesh in Jesus Christ to establish a foundation for that bridge. I know we refer to the Church, and the foundation but since you are speaking of a bridge, I will refer to it.
I had an interesting discussion about bridges with a minister years ago and he made it more simple, as you are complicating it by asking lots of questions.
A bridge is an interesting structure as some are small and some very large and has to span a long distance. The more weight a bridge has to handle as for example lots of cars or span a lot it has to have tall supports and lots of reinforcement depending on what kind of bridge example suspended or arch etc.
The bridge is our faith, but the foundation is what Jesus established.
Remember when Peter was with Jesus in the boat and Jesus extended his hand and asked Peter to reach out to step out. Pretend there was a bridge there because there was starting with a foundation and Peter’s faith had grown so much so he crossed. But did not complete maybe because Jesus’ work wasn’t finished.
There is no infinite void under the bridge.

 

[Through_Him]

You’ve said it yourself - you can choose.

Calvinistic predestination takes away your choice and the value of your response.
God prepares good works for us, He gives us actual grace to perform those works, but He also give us the free will to choose to act on His gifts or not.
He calls and as everyone knows, nobody comes to Him unless He draws them, but ultimately its our choice to respond or not, or, to respond well or not so well.
Predestination-for-all must remove all of that, and I cannot believe that when all those people who asked Christ - what they must do to be saved - that He told them, you are predestined to hell, there is no hope for you. What He actually told them was to DO what He said and they would be saved. Not, you are already saved but if its ok with you do what I say.
Their salvation was, He said - not me, dependant on their actions, their response, - this do, and thou shalt live.

I think TRUTH is quite confused. He must think partially anyways that if a person misses the mark, that he will not have another chance. It is a sort of cut and dry attitude, black and white, I guess.

 

[Thing]

Perhaps, but we know we were created within Time, a temporal reality, Time also has its reason and its purpose, its there to be used.