Is the past known to God?

[RBerman]

Open Theism posits that men possess libertarian free will, such that their future decisions cannot be said to exist until those decisions are made, and thus those future decisions do not exist to be objects of God's knowledge one way or the other, and thus God can be omniscient and yet not know what we're going to do in the future. I have multiple problems with this view, starting with the concept of libertarian free will and whether it's proper to speak of the future as an inappropriate object of God's knowledge.

Open Theists generally defend their views by appealing to Scriptures in which God, in the act of judging men for sin, says things like, "When I looked for [my vineyard] to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?" (Isaiah 5:4) or "Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." (Genesis 22:12) or "the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel." (1 Samuel 15:35). Open Thesists see these sorts of passages as evidence that God was surprised by human choices, and that therefore God must not know what we do before we do it. Historically, Christians have seen these verses as evidence that when God speaks judicially, he uses fact-finding, reactive language of the sort that a human judge would use. This doesn't mean God doesn't really know the future exhaustively and definitively, though. It just means that God renders his judgments in terms to which we can relate.

I don't want to debate the above; there's already a thread for that. But it did get me thinking about other judicial expressions used by God in the Bible, places where God acts like a human judge who asks questions of the defendant, or places where God appears to seek knowledge. Like these:

Genesis 3:8-13

And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself." He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Genesis 4:8-9

Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?" And the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground."

Genesis 18:20-21

Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know."

Job 1:6-7

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."

On the face of it, each of these passages depicts God as seeking information about the past or the present. Yet the Open Theist argument that "the future doesn't exist to be known" surely can't be used as a justification for God not knowing the past. Do Open Theists believe that these passages teach the ignorance of God which they seem to teach? And if not, what?

[rhutchin]

Open Theism posits that men possess libertarian free will, such that their future decisions cannot be said to exist until those decisions are made, and thus those future decisions do not exist to be objects of God's knowledge one way or the other, and thus God can be omniscient and yet not know what we're going to do in the future. I have multiple problems with this view, starting with the concept of libertarian free will and whether it's proper to speak of the future as an inappropriate object of God's knowledge.

Open Theists generally defend their views by appealing to Scriptures in which God, in the act of judging men for sin, says things like, "When I looked for [my vineyard] to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?" (Isaiah 5:4) or "Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." (Genesis 22:12) or "the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel." (1 Samuel 15:35). Open Thesists see these sorts of passages as evidence that God was surprised by human choices, and that therefore God must not know what we do before we do it. Historically, Christians have seen these verses as evidence that when God speaks judicially, he uses fact-finding, reactive language of the sort that a human judge would use. This doesn't mean God doesn't really know the future exhaustively and definitively, though. It just means that God renders his judgments in terms to which we can relate.

I don't want to debate the above; there's already a thread for that. But it did get me thinking about other judicial expressions used by God in the Bible, places where God acts like a human judge who asks questions of the defendant, or places where God appears to seek knowledge. Like these:

Genesis 3:8-13

And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself." He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Genesis 4:8-9

Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?" And the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground."

Genesis 18:20-21

Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know."

Job 1:6-7

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."

On the face of it, each of these passages depicts God as seeking information about the past or the present. Yet the Open Theist argument that "the future doesn't exist to be known" surely can't be used as a justification for God not knowing the past. Do Open Theists believe that these passages teach the ignorance of God which they seem to teach? And if not, what?

These verses also deny the omnipresence of God if the logic of the Open Theists rules.

[yxboom]

Open Theism posits that men possess libertarian free will, such that their future decisions cannot be said to exist until those decisions are made, and thus those future decisions do not exist to be objects of God's knowledge one way or the other, and thus God can be omniscient and yet not know what we're going to do in the future. I have multiple problems with this view, starting with the concept of libertarian free will and whether it's proper to speak of the future as an inappropriate object of God's knowledge.

I wasn't aware this thread was made and wasn't really requesting it, but since it was in reply to my post Ill take a stab at it. I am no means a spokesperson for the open view or pretend to be so there is no point in assuming everything I say is quality open theism.

Just as a means of clarification, presentism is more specifically what you are describing as in only the present actually exists, the past and future do not. Not all presentist are open theist nor vice versa. Open theism focuses more on the idea that God in design desiring reciprocal love, voluntarily created free will agents whose decisions would affect Him and in so doing we find God change His mind/plans and repent regarding those whom He loves. Not all future decisions are left open to God and outside of what is knowable. With that out of the way, for the sake of this response Ill agree with your premise regarding presentism/open theism as they do harmonize imo and I do ascribe to both.

Open Theists generally defend their views by appealing to Scriptures in which God, in the act of judging men for sin, says things like, "When I looked for [my vineyard] to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?" (Isaiah 5:4) or "Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." (Genesis 22:12) or "the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel." (1 Samuel 15:35). Open Thesists see these sorts of passages as evidence that God was surprised by human choices, and that therefore God must not know what we do before we do it. Historically, Christians have seen these verses as evidence that when God speaks judicially, he uses fact-finding, reactive language of the sort that a human judge would use. This doesn't mean God doesn't really know the future exhaustively and definitively, though. It just means that God renders his judgments in terms to which we can relate.

I don't want to debate the above; there's already a thread for that. But it did get me thinking about other judicial expressions used by God in the Bible, places where God acts like a human judge who asks questions of the defendant, or places where God appears to seek knowledge. Like these:

Genesis 3:8-13

And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself." He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Genesis 4:8-9

Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?" And the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground."

Genesis 18:20-21

Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know."

Job 1:6-7

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."

On the face of it, each of these passages depicts God as seeking information about the past or the present. Yet the Open Theist argument that "the future doesn't exist to be known" surely can't be used as a justification for God not knowing the past. Do Open Theists believe that these passages teach the ignorance of God which they seem to teach? And if not, what?

Aside from Gen 18:20-21 (which I will address later), these passages are all questions. Why we must interpret a question the same as a statement (ie. the LORD repented... Exo 32:14, Jer 26:19) makes no sense. When a teacher asks her student "What is 1+1?", we don't conclude based on that information that the teacher is ignorant of the answer. I often ask my kids after they destroy all that matters to me, "What have you done?", they don't assume I am oblivious to what was done. To suggest that God asks a question must be followed that God doesn't know the answer in the same way that God makes a statement or changes His mind is unnecessary.

As for Gen 18:20-21, God says that the "outcry of their sin is so great and sin so grievous" which is clearly an indication that He is aware of what is going on and foolish to conclude that God is neither omnipresent or knowledgable of the present. However, prior to bringing judgment upon these people which would wipe them out, He treated this much like He did Abraham with His sacrifice of Isaac and later Jonah with Nineveh on seeing which way these people would respond to a final test as it were, to settle this matter in a judicial way. Due to the actions of the people towards God's men and since no one responded to Lot's plea to flee the city aside from his wife and daughters the people remained and fell under God's judgment. This speaks more of God's mercy and love than of His ignorance of what is going on at the moment.

[yxboom]

These verses also deny the omnipresence of God if the logic of the Open Theists rules.

Way to show how little you understand open theism and these verses in general.

[seanD]

Open Theism posits that men possess libertarian free will, such that their future decisions cannot be said to exist until those decisions are made, and thus those future decisions do not exist to be objects of God's knowledge one way or the other, and thus God can be omniscient and yet not know what we're going to do in the future. I have multiple problems with this view, starting with the concept of libertarian free will and whether it's proper to speak of the future as an inappropriate object of God's knowledge.

Open Theists generally defend their views by appealing to Scriptures in which God, in the act of judging men for sin, says things like, "When I looked for [my vineyard] to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?" (Isaiah 5:4) or "Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." (Genesis 22:12) or "the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel." (1 Samuel 15:35). Open Thesists see these sorts of passages as evidence that God was surprised by human choices, and that therefore God must not know what we do before we do it. Historically, Christians have seen these verses as evidence that when God speaks judicially, he uses fact-finding, reactive language of the sort that a human judge would use. This doesn't mean God doesn't really know the future exhaustively and definitively, though. It just means that God renders his judgments in terms to which we can relate.

I don't want to debate the above; there's already a thread for that. But it did get me thinking about other judicial expressions used by God in the Bible, places where God acts like a human judge who asks questions of the defendant, or places where God appears to seek knowledge. Like these:

Genesis 3:8-13

And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself." He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Genesis 4:8-9

Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?" And the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground."

Genesis 18:20-21

Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know."

Job 1:6-7

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."

On the face of it, each of these passages depicts God as seeking information about the past or the present. Yet the Open Theist argument that "the future doesn't exist to be known" surely can't be used as a justification for God not knowing the past. Do Open Theists believe that these passages teach the ignorance of God which they seem to teach? And if not, what?

God's statements that imply his ignorance are not analogous to his actual actions that imply his ignorance. You can argue that the former is merely God being rhetorical, but when a statement becomes an action, this is not as easily explained that way, particularly when that action can result in someone's harm or even being led astray from God's purpose.

[RBerman]

I wasn't aware this thread was made and wasn't really requesting it, but since it was in reply to my post Ill take a stab at it. I am no means a spokesperson for the open view or pretend to be so there is no point in assuming everything I say is quality open theism.

Just as a means of clarification, presentism is more specifically what you are describing as in only the present actually exists, the past and future do not. Not all presentist are open theist nor vice versa. Open theism focuses more on the idea that God in design desiring reciprocal love, voluntarily created free will agents whose decisions would affect Him and in so doing we find God change His mind/plans and repent regarding those whom He loves. Not all future decisions are left open to God and outside of what is knowable. With that out of the way, for the sake of this response 'Ill agree with your premise regarding presentism/open theism as they do harmonize imo and I do ascribe to both.

In my experience, Open Theists are willing to stipulate that facts about the past exist and are thus knowable and known by God. The issue of whether the past itself exists in the way the present exists is another matter.

Aside from Gen 18:20-21 (which I will address later), these passages are all questions. Why we must interpret a question the same as a statement (ie. the LORD repented... Exo 32:14, Jer 26:19) makes no sense. When a teacher asks her student "What is 1+1?", we don't conclude based on that information that the teacher is ignorant of the answer. I often ask my kids after they destroy all that matters to me, "What have you done?", they don't assume I am oblivious to what was done. To suggest that God asks a question must be followed that God doesn't know the answer in the same way that God makes a statement or changes His mind is unnecessary.

The situations seem similar to me. I don't assume that when God asks a question, he doesn't know the answer. And I don't assume that when God "relents" or "repents" in the face of a changing circumstance, that God didn't know it was going to happen.

As for Gen 18:20-21, God says that the "outcry of their sin is so great and sin so grievous" which is clearly an indication that He is aware of what is going on and foolish to conclude that God is neither omnipresent or knowledgable of the present. However, prior to bringing judgment upon these people which would wipe them out, He treated this much like He did Abraham with His sacrifice of Isaac and later Jonah with Nineveh on seeing which way these people would respond to a final test as it were, to settle this matter in a judicial way. Due to the actions of the people towards God's men and since no one responded to Lot's plea to flee the city aside from his wife and daughters the people remained and fell under God's judgment. This speaks more of God's mercy and love than of His ignorance of what is going on at the moment.

My interest was in the way God words his evaluation about what those in Sodom "have done" (perfect tense). It would appear that we agree that God actually had exhaustive knowledge of what had previously happened in Sodom, although his words, if said by a man, would seem to imply that God did not really know firsthand what Sodom was like but had only heard about it from others. In other words, God speaks as a human judge gathering evidence, even when his omniscience means that he already knows the answer.

[rhutchin]

These verses also deny the omnipresence of God if the logic of the Open Theists rules.

Way to show how little you understand open theism and these verses in general.

In defending Open Theism, Gregory Boyd says this:

"Traditionally, theologians have taken all the passages that demonstrate that the future is settled either in God's mind (foreknowledge) or in God's will (predestination) as revealing the whole truth about God's relationship to the future. They therefore interpret all passages (such as the above) which suggest that God faces a partly open future as being figurative. On exegetical and theological grounds I do not see this approach as warranted. I am therefore compelled to take both sets of passages as literal and thus to draw the conclusion that the future which God faces is partly open and partly settled."

http://www.opentheism.info/pages/inf...god_future.php

Having argued that non-Open Theists cannot appeal to figurative language to escape the Open Theist claims that God reacts to present circumstances or changes His mind, etc., then Open Theists cannot then appeal to figurative language to defend anything else we might find in the Scriptures. On what logical basis could they do so?

Thus, Open Theists have placed themselves into the position of reading the Bible in a strictly literal manner. If they do not, then their only argument for Open Theism is that it is their opinion that those verses which support Open Theism should be taken literally while other verses can be taken literally or figuratively only because they don't impact Open Theism.

We would read a verse such as:

And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. (Genesis 18:20-21)

When we read, "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it,..." and follow the Open Theist logic, then we must conclude that God was not omnipresent as He had to "go down now, and see" in order to substantiate the truth of that which He had heard. We know that such is not the case because we read elsewhere that "The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good." (Proverbs 15:3)

This is the situation that the Open Theists find themselves. If Open Theists are going to use their logical system to prove that God does not know the future, then they cannot throw that logic away in looking at the issue of God's omnipresence.

[RBerman]

Thank you for summarizing my point, rhutchins.

[seanD]

Once again, God's statements of ignorance are not analogous to God's actions of ignorance. For a example, when scripture proclaims that God tests us by putting us through trials and tribulations, or the bible illustrates situations of this, in order to know what we're made of, this is more profound than assuming God was merely being rhetorical when he asked where Adam was in the garden. The explanation for the former is less logical than the latter. So since the two situations aren't equal, you merely presenting a false dichotomy.

[yxboom]

Once again, God's statements of ignorance are not analogous to God's actions of ignorance. For a example, when scripture proclaims that God tests us by putting us through trials and tribulations, or the bible illustrates situations of this, in order to know what we're made of, this is more profound than assuming God was merely being rhetorical when he asked where Adam was in the garden. The explanation for the former is less logical than the latter. So since the two situations aren't equal, you merely presenting a false dichotomy.

This particular objection has been discussed A Question for Open Theists Genesis 18:20,21.

[RBerman]

Once again, God's statements of ignorance are not analogous to God's actions of ignorance. For a example, when scripture proclaims that God tests us by putting us through trials and tribulations, or the bible illustrates situations of this, in order to know what we're made of, this is more profound than assuming God was merely being rhetorical when he asked where Adam was in the garden. The explanation for the former is less logical than the latter. So since the two situations aren't equal, you merely presenting a false dichotomy.

It's not enough to simply say that they are "not analogous" and that one is "more profound" and the other "less logical." These are all just assertions.

[seanD]

It's not enough to simply say that they are "not analogous" and that one is "more profound" and the other "less logical." These are all just assertions.

Then perhaps we should define examples. I think the sacrifice of Isaac is a pretty good example of this profound and illogical relationship between God’s knowledge and his actions, being that not only is the reason for that test not clear to us if God knew beforehand what Abraham would do, but since there is no clear reason, one could argue that God is actually tempting Abraham to perform an act that the other tribes practiced and that God considered an abomination. The Parable of the Sower is an even better example of this. The parable tells us that there are Christians who will eventually fall away for many reasons, one of them being the fact they can’t hack trials and tribulations. 1 Pet 1:6-7 tells us that God allows these trials and tribulations because he’s testing us. The question then becomes, not just why God needs to “test” us, but more illogically, why God would allow these trials if he knows beforehand which Christians won’t make the test and end up like the seeds that fall by the wayside. Now I’m sure the Calvinist can cook up an explanation for this, because we all have a knack for explanations and interpretations to make scripture fit our pet doctrines. But whatever the explanation, it’s nowhere as clear and easy to solve as it is to explain why God asked where Adam was in the garden, since it’s much clearer to us when it’s obviously a rhetorical question. Your argument only works if we assume that God’s obvious rhetorical statements of ignorance are equivalent to his not-so-obvious actions of ignorance (and I say this because you’ve used this same argument to refute me in the past), but the two scenarios are not the same because they cannot be explained as easily.

[RBerman]

This particular objection has been discussed A Question for Open Theists Genesis 18:20,21.

OK,thanks. I found the explanations offered there highly unsatisfying, especially the part where Greg Boyd has to appeal to "All the translations of the Bible are wrong, except for this one I am making up right now to support the view I already hold..." But since you already responded to this topic in that other thread, and I lost a longer post I was making here in response, I'm done for the moment.

[RBerman]

Then perhaps we should define examples. I think the sacrifice of Isaac is a pretty good example of this profound and illogical relationship between God’s knowledge and his actions, being that not only is the reason for that test not clear to us if God knew beforehand what Abraham would do, but since there is no clear reason, one could argue that God is actually tempting Abraham to perform an act that the other tribes practiced and that God considered an abomination.

Given the thrust of Genesis up to that point, and the difficulty Abraham endured to get the son he so desperately wanted to inherit his estate, it seems a severe misreading of the situation to think that Abraham was tempted to sacrifice Isaac, apart from the fact that God told him to do so.

The Parable of the Sower is an even better example of this. The parable tells us that there are Christians who will eventually fall away for many reasons, one of them being the fact they can’t hack trials and tribulations. 1 Pet 1:6-7 tells us that God allows these trials and tribulations because he’s testing us. The question then becomes, not just why God needs to “test” us, but more illogically, why God would allow these trials if he knows beforehand which Christians won’t make the test and end up like the seeds that fall by the wayside. Now I’m sure the Calvinist can cook up an explanation for this, because we all have a knack for explanations and interpretations to make scripture fit our pet doctrines. But whatever the explanation, it’s nowhere as clear and easy to solve as it is to explain why God asked where Adam was in the garden, since it’s much clearer to us when it’s obviously a rhetorical question. Your argument only works if we assume that God’s obvious rhetorical statements of ignorance are equivalent to his not-so-obvious actions of ignorance (and I say this because you’ve used this same argument to refute me in the past), but the two scenarios are not the same because they cannot be explained as easily.

God's "rhetorical statements of ignorance" and God's "actions of ignorance" have the same basic goal: To elicit a particular response from the humans with whom He is interacting. God has Jonah tell the Ninevites they will be destroyed, so that they will repent, and then God doesn't destroy the city. God tells Hezekiah that he's going to die, so that Hezekiah will humble himself before God, and then God gives Hezekiah 15 more years. God's interactions in the Sodom narrative are more complex due to the multiple humans, involving teaching for Abraham, teaching and rescue for Lot's family, and judgment upon Sodom. As far as the sacrifice of Isaac, Muzicman suggested that Abraham became "settled" in his devotion to God through that experience. I don't have the same understanding of "settled" that Muzicman does, but I agree that Abraham's faith in God was strengthened through that ordeal.

[seanD]

Given the thrust of Genesis up to that point, and the difficulty Abraham endured to get the son he so desperately wanted to inherit his estate, it seems a severe misreading of the situation to think that Abraham was tempted to sacrifice Isaac, apart from the fact that God told him to do so.



God's "rhetorical statements of ignorance" and God's "actions of ignorance" have the same basic goal: To elicit a particular response from the humans with whom He is interacting. God has Jonah tell the Ninevites they will be destroyed, so that they will repent, and then God doesn't destroy the city. God tells Hezekiah that he's going to die, so that Hezekiah will humble himself before God, and then God gives Hezekiah 15 more years. God's interactions in the Sodom narrative are more complex due to the multiple humans, involving teaching for Abraham, teaching and rescue for Lot's family, and judgment upon Sodom. As far as the sacrifice of Isaac, Muzicman suggested that Abraham became "settled" in his devotion to God through that experience. I don't have the same understanding of "settled" that Muzicman does, but I agree that Abraham's faith in God was strengthened through that ordeal.

It's interesting you ignore the second example I gave. I definitely will take note of that.

I don't see how Abraham's faith was strengthened if Abraham already had the faith to carry out the act in the first place. Nonetheless, if we can't explain why God "tested" Abraham other than he simply didn't have perfect knowledge that he would pass the test, then by golly we could assume God was tempting him to do something he thought was an abomination. The Hebrews 11:17 author certainly used the word "tempted." I find it soothing that God tested Abraham on a level that was necessary to get to his innermost fellings, which God couldn't possibly know. But if God did already know, then the fact he used an abominable act to tempt him into that action is amplified. Even if you could manage to eke out an explanation, does that explanation equal the weight of that?

And of course you'll argue that rhetorical statements of ignorance and God's actions of ignorance have the same basic goal, but this is what I mean by the two not having the same clear explanations, which is why I think your argument is neither a fair nor sensible one.