With all respect to you, you have not read what I have posted correctly. Allow me to make a few comments:
You are correct in saying that "God's choices precede his acts and that they aren't connected by necessity." However, you err when you conclude from that, therefore, "God transitions from a state of not having made a choice, through a process of decision, to a state of having made a choice."God is eternal—atemporal. I know you do not seem to grant it, but Scripture very clear that God is outside of time. Time is a necessary concomitant of finitude—created-ness. But God is infinite, and therefore by definition cannot be constrained in any way by time. Notice the Berkhof quote I posted immediately after the Ames quote, in which he says that, although we speak of God's decision and his consequent action, these are only logical categories, not temporal. Therefore, that God's "decision" logically precedes his "action" is not to say that it is temporally prior.
If this is taken into consideration, your issue with us claiming that God is outside of time is resolved. You are right, for a choice to be a choice, it must precede action, which necessitates time—for creatures. God is no creature. When we speak of God making choices, we are using, essentially, anthropomorphisms to describe his ways. This is fine. However, as I said earlier, the moment we try to move from describing to understanding or comprehension, we are dangerously close to error simply because God, being "wholly other," is entirely unlike us. I would argue that even his "mode of being" (for lack of a better phrase) is entirely different, because he exists of himself, and creatures exist contingently.
So, to conclude, God is outside of time. (I really do think Scripture does not equivocate on this.) In the end, your thesis (i.e., that if God knows his own future, he must therefore be constrained by it) is sorely begging the question—the question being whether or not God is constrained by time. God has no future to know; he just is (Exod. 3:14). Everything that he knows he knows by virtue of his own action, otherwise we must conclude that God learns, which would not only be unbiblical—even sacrilegious—but it would make God really no different than us, just a good bit smarter and wiser.
I understand your thought, and I really appreciate it when I see someone thinking about these things. It is good to do, I think. But, as I said before, in the end, we simply must confess with the Apostle that "his ways" are "past finding out" (Rom. 11:33). What we are talking abut here is like the doctrine of the Trinity. We have no idea how it is possible that the one God can eternally exist as three Persons, each possessing the fullness of the one deity, yet each one not being the other. We cannot understand that, but we must confess it. I believe that is true with this. If God is outside of time, how can he be said to act? I am not sure how that works, but many statements in Scripture require me to believe both, and one day, in eternity, perhaps I will be able to understand.