Fine. Loves to bluff.
That still does not answer the point.
Knowing that a man loves to bluff in general is not the same as knowing whether he will still bluff when the stakes become severe enough to truly test him.
In a friendly poker game?
Or with his entire livelihood on the table?
Because that difference matters.
A man may “love to bluff” when the loss is tolerable. That does not mean he will still bluff when the stakes are high enough to ruin him.
And if you reply, “It was just a game between friends,” then the analogy fails even harder.
Genesis 22 was not a friendly game between buddies.
It was Abraham being tested with Isaac, his son, his only son, the son of promise.
Reducing that to a casual poker bluff trivializes the severity of the test and the life of Isaac.
Yes, Abraham was called the friend of God.
But that does not turn Genesis 22 into a friendly wager.
The whole force of the passage is that Abraham was put under the most severe test imaginable, and only after Abraham did not withhold Isaac did God say:
“Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son...”
Prior knowledge of Abraham’s general faith does not equal prior knowledge that he would obey when the cost became that severe.
Well, I’m glad that’s settled by decree.
But that is exactly the question your analogy cannot answer.
A man may love to bluff in ordinary games. That does not prove he will keep bluffing when the stakes become severe enough to truly test him.
Genesis 22 is not about ordinary faith under ordinary circumstances, like a poker game between friends. It is about whether Abraham’s faith would hold when Isaac, the son of promise, was on the altar.
Exactly.
And your analogy does not establish “confirmatory declaration.”
It only shows that if a man already knows how his friend behaves under the relevant conditions, then “now I know” may be used confirmationally.
But that is the very point in dispute.
Genesis 22 is not a case where Abraham merely repeats an ordinary habit under ordinary circumstances.
It is a decisive test under extreme conditions.
So your analogy only works if you assume the thing you are trying to prove: that God already knew Abraham would obey when Isaac was on the altar.
Sure.
But that does not answer the issue.
The text does not say only Abraham learned something.
It says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said:
“Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son...”
So yes, Abraham’s faith was deepened and proven.
But the passage also says what God came to know through the test.
That is the part you keep inserting.
Genesis 22 says God tested Abraham.
It says Abraham obeyed.
It says God then said, “Now I know.”
It does not say God used exhaustive foreknowledge to stage a lesson.
Yes, Abraham learned.
Yes, we learn from the account.
But that does not erase what the text says that God learned through the test.
Yes, Abraham learned that God provides.
But that is apparently a lesson you still need to learn.
Your objection assumes God could not provide unless the future was already exhaustively foreknown.
But Genesis 22 is precisely about Abraham being brought to the edge of an impossible situation and learning that God Himself provides the way through it.
And there is another layer here.
Human sacrifice was the kind of thing pagan gods demanded. God hates human sacrifice. Yet Abraham was tested at the very point where obedience seemed to threaten both the promise of Isaac and the character of the God who gave that promise.
Would Abraham still trust God?
Would he still obey?
Would he believe that God could remain righteous and still keep His promise concerning Isaac?
That is why this was not a casual “friendly poker game.” It was the most severe test imaginable.
And only after Abraham did not withhold Isaac did God say:
“Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son...”
Yes, God provided the ram.
Yes, we see Christ foreshadowed in hindsight.
But none of that erases what the passage says God came to know through the test.
Amen.
So stop leaning on a theological system that tells you Genesis 22 cannot mean what it says.
The passage says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said:
“Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son...”
Trusting the Lord includes trusting what He actually said.
Not explaining it away because exhaustive foreknowledge requires a different answer.
Right.
God knew what David had done.
God knew David’s character.
God knew how to confront David in a way that would expose his guilt through his own sense of justice.
None of that requires exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice.
Nathan’s parable proves that God knew how to confront a guilty man.
It does not prove that Genesis 22:12 means the opposite of what it says.
The first part is in the text.
The second part is not.
The text shows God knew David’s sin and sent Nathan to expose it.
It does not say God foreknew David would incriminate himself.
That may be your inference, but even granting it, it would only show God knew David well enough to know how he would respond to that confrontation.
It still would not prove exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice.
Agreed.
God knew David’s guilt, David’s character, and David’s sense of justice. I mean, He had already known David for many years at that point. David was not some stranger to God.
So yes, God knew how to confront David.
But that is exactly the distinction we keep making.
Knowing a man well enough to know how to confront him is not the same thing as possessing exhaustive foreknowledge of every future free choice.
Nathan’s parable proves that God knew David.
It does not prove that God eternally foreknew every future act of every man.
