You continue to hang your arguments on the premise that something must actually exist in temporal time. Such is the presupposition of the open theist, who can go on to declare the future does not exist, so God does not know anything about it. I have answered this fallacy previously above. I cannot say more than to remind you to consult Charnock or others so linked earlier.
For God to know the inclinations, they must exist in some form, some "where" or some "when". That may only be in the mind of God, if it's before He created anything else. See your next paragraph for explanation.
But this is an interesting turn of events, that you are basing God's knowledge of something on His ability to see into the future, something the WCF eschews. I wonder at the reach for Arminian doctrines when the Calvinist ones fail you.
Inclinations spring from one's nature, expressed as actions, the fruits of the will, which is attached to nature. God has established the free will of the person. God knows AMR will refrain from this or that, or do this or that. God is not proximally causing me to do or not to do. Certainly God is the first cause. But His antecedent causation is done within the realm of necessary, contingent, and free secondary occurrences.
You say inclinations "spring from one's nature", but if God understands our inclinations before He created us (which He would have to do to preordain actions
based on our inclinations), then those "inclinations" sprang from somewhere else besides "one's nature", and certainly not yet expressed as actions, unless you are talking about God's nature, or the intention of God to create our nature in a particular way. It can't "spring from" us, because
before we existed, God preordained stuff to happen according to those inclinations, according to you.
Of course, if you are right in your first paragraph, God can just see into time to see what He is going to create and what kind of inclinations His creations are going to have.
This "must exist first" harangue appears to be a stumbling block for you. I advise again that you take up and read other materials on the matter. You could not make this argument time and again if you had actually read, say Charnock, or others. At the least you would interact with these arguments pointedly to make your case. As things stand, you are repeating yourself and
I am not obliged to do the heavy lifting for you. That said, I do take the time to provide plenty of external materials and other readings that are contained in the links of my posts for those that want to do some individual research and become more informed.
I'm repeating myself because you haven't responded to my assertions, just dismissed them.
Again, the links I provided treat these issues in painful detail. Moreover just because these links are at an obvious "settled theist" site
does not mean they take the usual tactic of what one finds in your posts and that of others and
can just be summarily dismissed because of one's own biases.
I would hope you would treat my own assertions with the same care you want me to treat those in your links.
As a thought experiment, how does the open theist escape the same complaint? Open theists will affirm that God will ultimately achieve His end for His creation. Apparently at least one thing is actually settled concerning the future, no? If not, what is the Biblical hope we are confident will actually take place?
I'm not sure how you get from "God must predetermine some things" to "God must predetermine everything", or from "God must predetermine" to "God must predetermine all from before the beginning". Allowing the first certainly doesn't require the second in each case, does it? Since I don't think it does, I don't find a thought experiment along those lines too awkward for the open theist. But for your sake, I'll attempt a simple one:
Suppose God plans for Israel to persevere at least until Jesus Christ arrives in the flesh. To do this, His people need to refrain from following after other gods, but they do it anyway, which is not something He would have ever predetermined for them (else God would be guilty of not only tempting them to sin, but ordaining their sin). So he first commands them not to follow those other gods, and emphasizes the command by destroying and displacing the Canaanites, but when they still go a-whoring, God decimates and displaces the Israelites. Note the distinction: decimate vs destroy. Then God gives them protection while they are displaced in Babylon by putting folks named, say, Daniel and Esther and other folks in top spots of influence. These top-spotters are targets of evil forces, so they obviously need to be protected, too, which God accomplishes through miracle and providence. When they are allowed to go back to the land, which God arranges, they still need protection and providence, so He provides it, though not without hardship, in the form of the different phases of Nebuchadnezzar's dream statue. As those phases are being accomplished, God goes silent for 400 years, as His voice in prophecy is not really needed--He had provided the information they needed already, and with the chastisement of 70 years in Babylon, they were equipped to survive. But He could have sent messengers to them if needed. Finally, Jesus arrives, and that particular purpose of the people of Israel is accomplished--the Messiah has come.
I could give you numerous others, but they would all sound eerily familiar to you. But I think I'll give you the scenario from your point of view:
God wants Israel to persevere at least until Jesus arrives in the flesh. To do this, He tells them not to follow after other gods, but He works it, in His mysterious ways, so they DO follow after other gods. This obviously causes them to need to be removed from the land, which He knew about ahead of time (because He planned for them to go a-whoring), otherwise He would never have been able to figure out what to do with them. In fact, if He doesn't plan everything that ever happens, He would just wring His hands, not knowing what to do.
So how exactly does God pull that off given all the myriad of contingencies that are involved? Is God just biding His time awaiting for all these things to fall into place, never inclining the will of others via secondary means because the open theist "will" is the Holiest of Holies? For that matter, what guarantee exists that all these apparently autonomous occurrences will ever come to be? It sounds like the old erroneous nonsense of a million monkeys typing forever will inevitably type out Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Do you really think God is leaving everything to chance if He leaves something to an individual? Why? Is it really all or nothing in your mind?
I don't think the "will" (I almost said "free will", but I caught myself in time before Stripe had a chance to say anything
), is the holiest of holies--it doesn't save us, and it is obviously not our path to God. But it is certainly a hindrance to our finding God.
In the final analysis, your position is one seeking to understand how exactly God pulls it all off, reconciling total sovereignty with human responsibility. Let me say quite clearly that no answer is given us in Scripture.
Not if you don't read what scripture has to say about it, that's for sure. But if God's total sovereignty is displayed in a way that doesn't require Him to preordain every single act of every single man for every single moment of time, then perhaps scripture DOES reconcile total sovereignty with human responsibility, unless the scriptures can
just be summarily dismissed because of one's own biases.
Let me be clear--I have no idea how God will pull off what He plans to pull off, nor do I expect to always know. But I DO have some idea of how He has pulled off things in the past--since he tells us some of it. Sometimes He uses sickness or invaders to bring about repentance, or at least to make His people cry out to Him (as with Hezekiah x2, Manasseh, and lots of others). Sometimes He causes and uses other nations' calamities to highlight a point for His people, so they won't take a wrong path (Canaanites, though He is extremely adept at dual purpose, and those calamities also work to punish). Sometimes he hardens people's hearts by presenting them miracles they can fairly easily "duplicate", before bringing on the tougher calamities that tell the world God is watching over His people (Pharaoh and Eqyptians).
But I'm a little curious, if you think
you are not required to reconcile these two concepts, why did you ask
me to up above in the thought experiment? Double standard, perhaps?
What Scripture should teach us about the matter is that the same God that created all that exists in our temporal universe did so by mere speech act. We should thus be confident that this same God is able to rule as He sees fit to rule, yet justly hold man accountable. Both are affirmed in Holy Writ. We should not strive to dilute one in favor of the other. As Spurgeon once noted, there is no need to reconcile these friends in Scripture.
Ah, good! Then you agree that God created all of our inclinations, so that He would not be hampered by not knowing what we were going to do, and thus not be completely paralyzed by people going against His will. And if He created all our inclinations, and we only do what our inclinations lead us to do, God is the author of sin, which He both wants and doesn't want, we are just robots, and the universe is meaningless to us.