What I described at Ⅱwas about our mindset for the occasion to confront any socially necessary situation in which we think that we should contribute our social community with charity activity. And that our own spontainity means should never taken nor replaced with compensation.

Simply, what we act only for getting prize is neither deniable value in terms of libralism's free competition, nevertheless, in terms of charity, that acting signification and impacting range must be so narrowed, far from it, that profittable reason and motivation could disgrace our actuation or kind of our just and honesty abiding ethical own satisfaction in our mind.
At least in regard of religious mind which depens on Christianity's normativity.

Nevertheless, actually our social life is usually filled with so many unsolved contradiction which we could never comprehend so easily facing so many troublesome facts generated in society and that complicated structual mechanism could distress our mind, according to our mind's earnest reason's purity and determination.

There must be first our mind confronting setback.
Very typically universally experienceable stumbling block for solving and pulling through to next phase must be the most difficult object for overcome around our future prospect.

Probably that setback could be derived from ethically educated criteria or kind of individual consciencious mind abiding own ethics and socially running conventional ideas in harsh gap and mutually contradictorily present questionable mind.
In other words, one our honest mind and that realizable condition makes mutual so hard crevasse, then after all we get some revising act started for mutual compromise.

Ideally regarded just idea has mutually fierce wall between any individual and social unit including any sort of organization. 
In other words, any communicative method or kind of universally convincing nowhow to convince any other one must have mutual so extremely divided reality among any unit members and social citizens.

That first setback must tell us so personally, in providing us a certain question how we can regard freedom for surviving own social life to us, in terms of any carnally necessary livelihood issue and really hopeful own ideal.

I'll address to interpret all those issues at simpler example we can easily grasp.
E.g. in terms of our memory, necessarily each one has own it, and that content could never be replaced with any other one, and that fact is impliciltly known to anybody in society.
Necessarily, each one has own familty history, pedigree's nature and idea's color, though, necessarily each notion, with justice, ideal, common sense or anything, from the beginning, each one's own memory content and own context abiding thinking tendency around any item exist in this society.

Though, necessarily to us, society thing is very complicated gathered mass with very assorted idea, ideology around any matter which is necessary to society and for us all.

Necessarily each one's own memory content as the decisive fact gives us memory's meaning and signification's mutually not shared in division. Yes, that harsh division is another signification around social identity.

At this reality, we are obliged to confront socially unsolved so many contradictions, and for grappling with these issues could take anyone who takes part in social activity the wisdom to get own ideal realized so smartly, necessarily there anybody could picture or assume either so tactful strategy, that scheme is too clever to keep it only in goodness, far from it, very even kind of cunning own transaction around breaking through own harsh reality for embodying own ideally completed condition.

Necessarily there could have been outputted even evil-minded scheming for entrapping own enemy or so in the same community, or organization into own tactics, if the ones could be too tough to involve them with own scheme.

In other words, scheming mind must attend either so cunning evil doing's temptation's trap too. Though, to us, originally freedom means both so emancipated condition from unnecessarily bound state, as the demanding it in allowance, foregiveness or so, and also necessarily, tactfully very cleverly taking advantage of not just method or even in legally forgiven range, so mean and strategically aggressive one for embodiment of own ideal.

In fact, already once mentioned Immaniel Kant is interpreted by his researching ones in contemporary academic circle either that he thought his addressing "freedom" as kind of what we should apply into own reason attending idea.

That on the contrary signifies that freedom could apply or be applied by us into either evil-doing and the indenting, nevertheless, on the basis of that range we could apply is infinite, daringly we could take our reason as the ethically applied freedom. That must be that knowing all freedom's applied range, and through it, we can dare to opt only goodness suppressing any evil-doing's capably realizable possibility in excluding with our ethically just idea's favoritism and calmed thought reason.

Let's summarize all those claims.

KNOWING REASON means EITHER KNOWING OWN GOODNESS and OWN CAPABILITY to REALIZE even EVIL-DOING.

First knowing if we try to do, evil-doing execution is either possible, nevertheless, toward it, we can control our mind, and suppress own that doing, in it, he tried to claim that freedom's true signified reason to exist and he at least tried to interpret the "reason" we can have, though our idea around moral and ethics regard.

Really, we all are having either illegally and morally, ethically evil-doing executing capablity, however, in that awareness, we, with reason in moblizing own spontainity, could execute only what we regard as the good in goodness morale or ethical norm.
Kant regarding freedom must have meant, some superior philosophers who are interpreting Kant's ideology's form and that attending own idea.

Kant's reason means what I tried to interpret with some referrence to his researching philosophers' idea. For the time being, let's define his idea so.
That could mean either God's testing to us, in other words, we should interpret his idea like that suggestion. 
As these his prudent ideas show to us, Martin Luther described like next.✹

By the way, generally Chiristianity's testament defines like next(Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English[c]often last Will and T～）statement in writing saying how sb wishes his property to be distributed after his death. That dictionary continues the definition around Old and New after that.

Luther described like next in his text in question.

”We must have clearly awoken eyes so strictly. We must be noticed to God's words, not to sign or symptom. Otherwise, rather than to karma or sign, we must be noticed to belief.
In the places God's promise exists, belief is necessarily demanded. Though, because we demand promise and belief, each of them could be lack, in the situation, sacrament must be ineffecive. Without promise, we'd never be able to believe in, without being able to beleive in , we'd never make promise certain. When both two things could join together, certain sacrament's effect is made outputted. Without promise and belief, needing sacrament's effect must be meaningless, and futile effort. Far from it, that could drag us punishment. At MARK16-16, He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Christ said so. According to that saying, why beleif is demanded at sacrament is caused from that belief could be integral for rescuing anything if without sacrament, it defined in certain signification. Though, He did not say, "Not believing not given one".

Next occasion to get this theme subsequently running, we'd take upper Luther's sentences' serially after this time ending part of his sentences, and around these serially described contents (justificatio), referring either contemporary ethologist Karl Barth.

(to be continued)

Feb. 19th.    2022

✹De Captivitale Babylonica Eccelediae Praeludium (1520), in WA, abt. 1, Bd. 6, S. 497-526.
Original text is based on upper indicated, really referred text is 宗教改革三大文書 付「九五箇条の提題」深井智朗訳、マルティン・ルター　講談社学術文庫2456

『悪への自由 カント倫理学の深層文法』中島義道　勁草書房 2011年

NKJV HOLY BIBLE
NEW KING JAMES VERSION