No Justification because of works before grace or works after grace

Johannes Piscator, "The Apostle derogates justification not only from those works which are done before faith, but also from those which are done after faith. For he speaks of Abrahams works, which are mentioned in Scripture for to show his uprightness as that he obeyed God going out of his own country, and offered his son. But works which Abraham did beore faith, are mentioned in the Scripture, not as such whereof he might rejoice, but as such whereo he might worthily be ashamed: namely, that he served strange gods, Josh. 24.2."

Knowledge of Good and Evil

The Bible speaks of knowledge of good and evil. For instance, in Genesis 2:17, God forbids the eating of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 3:22, God says that man, after having disobeyed the command not to eat from the tree, has become "as one of us, to know good and evil". Elsewhere, in Isaiah 7:16, the Bible speaks of a boy before he is able to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that you abhor shall be desolate of both her kings.

The Arminian or free willer will speak of this as proof that free will does exist and that man has the ability to choose without coercion from God or something else between good and evil. But, is this conclusion necessarily so? After reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation the concept of free will is not ever found. So if this is so, then the Arminian reasoning is false. So the question is what does it therefore mean for the Bible to speak of having a knowledge of good and evil?

The problem today in reading Scripture or talking to others about Scripture is that many read the Bible through a lense. Of course, we all have lenses or glasses. The issue is not that we ought not to read the Bible without lenses, but we ought not to bring lenses from outside the text of Scripture and reading those concepts back into scripture. Yes, interpretation of scripture often deals with logical deduction; but the only logical deduction that is founded upon Scripture is that which is followed from the text of Scripture. The Bible no where says man has free will nor allures to the point of such.

So the question is what does it therefore mean for the Bible to speak of having a knowledge of both good and evil? To put simply, we often say that a man has a knowledge of a thing after adequate study of it. This is philosophy 101. I cannot work on trucks or cars because I am not well versed in such things. Likewise, to have a knowledge of both good and evil is simply to know both good and evil. To know good and to know evil. Man from the garden has become evil, able to commit evil. Likewise, the Bible in Isaiah 7 does not say that man is not sinful from birth but rather that he is not able to rightly be able to distinguish between the two points proficiently. Christ grew in wisdom of the truth. He did so without sin. As he grew, he became more and more proficient to distinguish between good and evil without sin. Likewise, when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden they became sinners knowing evil. God, knows how to distinguish the good from the evil because He is God and the law is contingent upon what he deems is right and wrong. The Bible even speaks of those who are not able to distinguish between the two (these are not infants either).

Empiricist cut the branch on which they sit

Like the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume, the modern language philosophers, intent on undermining theology, undermine themselves. Hume showed that the existence of God could not be proven if one begins with empirical evidence; in so doing he demonstrated that nothing at all could be proven with empirical evidence. God lives, despite the best efforts of Hume, and Christian theology remains, despite the best efforts of the language philosophers. The only things Hume and the language philosophers have refuted are themselves. - John Robbins, Forward to Clark's book Language and Theology, Pg. V or 5