This argument is based on three assumptions: (1) the universal law of causation, (2) an undefined concept of free will, and (3) an ignorance of God's transcendence. (I don't mean that you are ignorant. I mean that your assumptions do not take transcendence into account.) While all of us Christians affirm the immanence of God, we must not ignore or forget the transcendence of God. While we understand that God is entirely within his creation, it isn't true that he is subject to the laws and principles of his creation. He is not, for instance, subject to the universal law of causation.
While it is true that within this universe, nothing happens without an antecedent cause, it is not true that God must "cause" things to happen within the universe. A transcendent creator is not limited to the law of causation. According to the principles of creativity, a creator is able to bring things into existence ex-nihio, i.e. from nothing. The Genesis account, for instance, pictures a creator, who speaks things into existence. Thought becomes reality at the command of the creator. Miracles stand as evidence against the idea that all things require an antecedent cause found within the universe. The acts of creation and miracles have an antecedent source, which exists outside of the universe. The one who said, "Let there be light" is the same who can say, "let there be wine in the containers rather than water."
Foreordination, therefore, must take transcendence into account. Foreordination only makes sense within the context of a transcendental God and his creative activity. In order to understand this relationship, I find the author/novel to be a helpful aid. The author is to God as the novel is to the universe. We would not, for instance, accuse Tolkien of being an evil person for creating the character Sauron. Tolkien didn't force or coerce Sauron. Rather, the account of Sauron acting in malice as a free agent makes sense within the story. Within the story, Sauron's actions are explicable in terms of his self-determination, even as his story is also explicable in terms of Tolkien's self-expression. Both are true at the same time because Tolkien's existence is transcendental with respect to his novel, the story and the characters. Sauron's free will actions within the story are not independent from Tolkien's narrative purpose.
We don't condemn Tolkien for the deaths of all the orcs or free peoples who died in his novel. And neither do we condemn Tolkien for the creation of a story that contains an evil person such as Sauron. We evaluate the story based on the ideas it presents. Does good survive evil? Is evil punished? Is good rewarded? Do Tolkien's characters speak truthfully, fairly and accurately about the human condition? These criteria help us evaluate the story Tolkien told.
Likewise, if existence is explicable in terms of God's narrative purpose, then our evaluation of history is focused on the purpose and execution of the story God is creating. Our evaluation of history is centered on the narrative purpose and execution of history and whether history is a good story or not. Are evil and sadistic actions condemned and punished? Is good promoted and evil discouraged? The creation of our existence is nothing less than a form of God's self-expression. He speaks into existence people and actions that highlight his character.
