To tempt and test are two entirely different animals....Job was tested and not tempted to sin...Jesus was tempted and there is a difference....if you cannot understand that then you miss the grand picture of both events....!
tempt
tɛm(p)t/Submit
verb
entice or try to entice (someone) to do something that they find attractive but know to be wrong or unwise
test1
tɛst/Submit
noun
1.
a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use
dcontroversal,
I always appreciate your orthodox positions on things.
So I'm going to analyze and nitpick something a bit, but I don't want you to take it as anything more than it is.
My point is only to discuss and clarify some messy things.
The word "test" can be used in many different ways.
If we define the word "test" in the same way it's used in scripture when referring to humans,
I think we'll find that the concept of
"temptation" usually falls within the concept of testing, as an intrinsic subset.
So what did that mean?
It just means that when a human is tested morally, that is going to include temptation.
Alright, here it goes:
1. In scripture, when we talk about "testing" of people, we aren't really using your above definition of testing.
We're using a more specific definition, a definition which is specific to the context.
This more specific and contextual definition really means something more like, "to establish quality or performance based on MORALS, or ABILITY TO OBEY GOD."
So we aren't just testing some thing in general, we're specifically testing HUMANS, and we're specifically testing their MORALS, or their ABILITY TO OBEY GOD.
2. If we define "testing" a bit more narrowly like this, so it now actually refers to what the scripture is referring to, we'll begin to see this has certain ramifications and implications.
When we test a bit of gold for purity, we aren't at all doing the same thing as when we test a human's obedience to God.
With the gold, we aren't concerned with it's morality, or it's ethics.
But with a person, we are concerned with PRECISELY those things.
And so... the testing, and the measuring devices, are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
3. When we test a person's morals, or their "ability to obey God", we have to use a test that can test that... and so we end up with a test which INTRINSICALLY REQUIRES some kind of temptation.
There is no other way to test a person's morals, or their "ability to obey God."
The ONLY way to test morals, is to create a situation where the morals have opportunity to respond in either way, good or bad... and thus the necessity of temptation.
The test itself requires some kind of temptation for the test to even occur.
4. I think the normal orthodox view here (if we break it down) is to say that God does the "testing", but he allows Satan, or the man's own heart, to provide the actual "temptation."
In this way God creates or allows the testing, which MUST contain temptation for a test to occur, but God doesn't directly provide the temptation.
I think this would be the normal orthodox view.