In this sermon, the speaker discusses the concept of knowledge in relation to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He emphasizes that the tree is called the tree of the knowledge of evil, indicating that it would have allowed mankind to attain a higher state of knowledge if they had successfully passed the probation. The speaker also highlights the importance of understanding the total condition of man's heart and mind in relation to this knowledge. He concludes by acknowledging God's role in providing security and forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

O Lord, our God, it is a good thing to absolve Thy matchless Glory as the Most High, as the One who reigns in heaven above and in the earth beneath, and who has granted such security to Thy children that they shall never perish. Thou dost hide them in the secret place of the Most High and under the shadow of the Almighty, so that no evil shall befall them. Thou givest charge to Thine angels concerning them, and dost grant it through Christ Jesus, through the new way which He has established, through fellowship with Him, that we may enter into the assurance of that security that belongs to those who are Thy children. Accept of us in this hour, and forgive our sins. For Jesus' sake. Amen. ...of the hour we proceed in the... ...and therefore... ...into the last, which I think is the most tenable. Namely, that the knowledge of good and evil applies to either alternative of the probation charge. If the probation had been successful, Adam and Eve would have come to the knowledge of good and evil. If they had been unsuccessful, they would also come to the knowledge of good and evil. Yes. I'm dealing with the most tenable thing of my viewpoint. You see, we have to take account of the fact that the tree is called... ...not the tree of the knowledge of good or evil, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Good and evil as correlated and conditioning elements. In the event of a successful probation, man would have to a higher state of knowledge. And we can at least detect one way in which this would have been necessary, even in a state of simple and confirmed perfection. Namely, that there was evil in the universe, quite apart from the fall of our first parents. And if Adam were to attain to a higher state of knowledge, he would surely have been given enlarged knowledge, not only of God, but of created reality. Enlarged knowledge of God's providential order. If man were to attain to enlarged knowledge of God's providential order, he would have to have knowledge of that kingdom of evil, which already existed by the fall of the devil and evil. There are other ways in which we could easily conceive of this higher state of knowledge, as knowledge of good and evil. But we can pass over these other aspects. Now in the event of a non-successful probation, unsuccessful, we can very readily see how this new condition, this new condition could be disguised as the knowledge of good and evil. Man already had some knowledge of the good, the highest, from the highest plane of reality. He had knowledge of God. He had some knowledge of His providential order. But once he had entered into his knowledge, ingredients which would never have crossed the threshold of his consciousness, which would never have passed the threshold of his consciousness, if he had held his integrity. Well, that can be reflected on it in just a moment. Also, there is the one that is supported by the balance of consideration, namely that the knowledge of good and evil refers to either alternative of the probation choice. We are not to suppose that the knowledge, and knowledge is identical in either, it would be identical in either event. We have to take into account the diversity, the diversity in respect of content and in respect of the respective state of consciousness. Diversity in respect of content and respective state of consciousness. Because they are entered now, by default, into man's consciousness, elements that would never have entered his consciousness, unless he had seen. There was no the consciousness of guilt. There was the experience of fear. There was the emotion of shame. There also entered into his heart and mind an entirely new and radically different complex of affections, of impulses, of propensities, dispositions, motives, desires, intentions. In a word, his whole dispositional complex was radically changed, and we can never think of the state of knowledge, never think of the state of knowledge, referred to in the word knowledge in that formula, apart from the total condition of man's heart and mind. Hence, the knowledge that resulted from the law differs radically from the knowledge to which he would have attained by a successful probation. Yet, in both cases, in both cases it could be called the knowledge of good and evil. In both cases. And that is not contrary to the analogy of scripture in the use of the word know or knowledge, or synonyms. It's not contrary to the pattern of the analogy of scripture. Knowledge is the effect of man in his form and state. And the same terms, the same terms, to the decadent, the knowledge which belongs to fallen man, as a rational, intelligent being, and the knowledge which is eternal. And consequently, there is no reason, according to the analogy of scripture, why that formula should not be used. The knowledge to which man would have attained, there is no reason, according to the analogy of scripture, that there is a radical distinction in respect of his specific qualities. This knowledge is to be, in terms of which this knowledge is to be defined, there is a radical distinction in specific qualities, characterizing this in respect. You see, the object is the same in both cases. The object is the same. The knowledge of good and evil. But the knowledge itself reflects on the subjective apprehension. Subjective apprehension. You get the point? No, I don't think you have any different conclusion. Even if you take good and evil, in the Semitic sense of everything, I'm not saying that. The Semitic analogy, that good and evil is a way, we do take it as interpretive means, for in the knowledge of man, which is what, after all, are the two, to which everything can be comprehended. What are they? These are the two comprehensive kinds. No one further observation respecting probation by its very nature involves a limited period of time. A limited period. Unlimited. The whole purpose is to bring to a final issue the destiny of mankind. But you can see that a destiny, a destiny contingent upon an uncertain event can never be a settled destiny. Never be a settled destiny until that event passes out of the realm of uncertainty to that destiny. Passes out of the realm of uncertainty to that of certainty. And you see, you have analogies all from this literature to support that conclusion. We know that in the case of mankind, obedience, governing a certain period of time, has its irrevocable certainty, its irrevocable determination. The obedience of Christ is a finished event, and the redemption wrought by His obedience is finally and irrevocably secure. Likewise, in the case of the elect angels, we are told that they kept their thirsty sticks since they are elect angels. They are now irrevocably confirmed in that they kept their thirsty sticks. They are the elect angels, and therefore they are irrevocably confirmed in their thirsty sticks. And of course, we also know that in the case of Adam, the disobedience did just whistle. As far as this administration is concerned, in irrevocable confirmation in sin, condemnation, irrevocable conclusion, and death, and therefore reasonable, and not only reasonable, but necessary to obedience, maintained and perfected over a certain period of time, have involved irrevocable confirmation in righteousness. Now we pass on to subdivision, subject of the condition, A. Prohibition, B. Temptation. Now the sense is that of solicitation, solicitation means use in the way of another to do that which is contrary to the revealed will of God. Use in the sense of hope, to try, to prove, and it is also used in the sense of falling into temptation, falling into temptation. But it is in this middle sense that it is being used in this discussion. Mainly solicitation to sin and evil. Now it is this that is denied of God. James 1.13 and 14 God cannot be the tempter. That is to say, He doesn't solicit. He doesn't place before men the inducement to sin. This distinction is very patient. Inducement God placed before our temptation. He warned them, and rightly warned them. It is devilish to do. That is, it is devilish to seduce. This distinction is very eloquently advertised in the Garden of Eden. How totally different is the role of the serpent. Now we must believe that the serpent was a literal serpent, but that the literal serpent was instigated by the archenemy of God and His kingdom, namely the devil. And that is demonstrated by such passages as Matthew 13, 38 and 39. Matthew 13, 38 and 39. John 8, 44. Romans 16, 20. 1 John 3, 8. Revelation 12, 9. And this was the apocryphal book of wisdom. 11, 24. There are others considering the pleading in support of that thesis. But I think that that thesis is one which later is perfectly clear. That medium or the agent. Now, in this temptation, our first parents were subjected to unbelieving suggestions. And remember that these thoughts did not originate in the hearts and minds. They were subjected particularly into the hearts and minds of the elite by their attempt. It was not sin on the part of those who to be subjected to that seducement. Our Lord also was subjected even more aggravated. Consequently, we must remember it is not sinful to be tempted. It is not sinful to be tempted. To tempt, to be tempted. And that is why in the ordination of God, the ordination of God and in His providence, our first parents, in their state of innocence, were subjected to the temptation, you see, of divine appointment. It was not of divine agency. Now, therefore, it was in that double substance that God appointed to obey the specific prohibition, which pointed to the obedience to the advantage of men. The probation was focused, you see, in the prohibition to eat of the tree of the knowledge of Buddha-nirvana. It was focused in that prohibition. The temptation was that to the eating of the tree of the knowledge. And consequently, the strangeness of the condition exemplified in the tension between the claims of obedience arising from the divine prohibition and the pressures of temptation arising from the tempter's allegations. The pressures of temptation, the focus in that tree illustrates a very important feature of human life. Human life is then in the continued truth. Probation and temptation are oftentimes in the very same detail. It is just precisely these points which, of course, are the intensity of sinful life. We must remember in this connection that man had plenary ability to obey the prohibition. Plenary ability. But he also had the ability to the opposite. The possibility of the opposite was allowed since he wanted to solve that where I cannot. That's the truth. Well, I just... The ability to obey... The ability was inherent in his very conscience by God. And that, I think, would be not only incompatible with the expressivity in terms of being very good in precisely the sense because the animal... You have to apply to the animal that don't belong to that lowest level precisely the same. Humankind, you have to apply new categories. A very good... He meant that each being was very good in terms of all the categories that are applicable to that species of being and to the particular purpose. You have to apply to knowledge and to help in whispering and therefore only perfect. Yes, Mr. Long. Plenary ability. Well, his full ability could have fulfilled all the will of life. Plenary ability. It could have. God and... On the last point that I was making before I began to ask... In Calvin's Institute. Calvin's Institute, Book 1, Chapter 15, Institutes 1, Chapter 15, Section 8. Because in that particular paragraph you have one of the most eloquent Calvin rises to great heights, great penetration of thought. Well, that's one of them. On that precise question that I was dealing with just now, we come to the fourth thing. And that is promise. Well, the most conclusive. We must not overlook the fact the tree of life had an important role in life. And it is quite clear that to say the very least, the tree of life was the symbol of everlasting life. In this context, the very word life, the very word life would imply everlasting because it is used in this context as the opposite of death. The opposite of death. In the day that meeteth the Lord there shall surely die. The tree of life is contrasted with and the only in contrast with life that knows no death. But that is confirmed by Genesis 3 clearly implies that the tree of life