One reason I doubt traditionalists is that when I read their arguments - especially the verses they present as divine foreknowledge - I can generally see a reasonable explanation for the foreknowledge from a dynamic (not static) viewpoint of Omniscience.
On the other hand it is reasonable to say that most bible verses are spoken or written from an 'anthropomorphic perspective of the world', and also so are Gods emotions, character and responses.
And although most biblical verse speak of God from a human earthly perspective, these verses don't 'necessarily demand' God is actually 'surprised or amazed' at what we do. I 'know' my kids will do dumb things and smart things, yet my 'emotion' is still that I am 'surprised and amazed' when they do.
So, I don't hold my views simply, or only, 'because' of the more reasonable 'dynamic foreknowledge' perspective of foreknowledge in scripture, but 'because' I see no reason to believe the many unnecessary metaphysical, physical and philosophical complications traditionalism creates in 'trying to explain' how God can be Omniscient concerning the future, our actions, and everything else.
I have moved from Molinism and Open Theism to somewhere in between, because;
1. I am not in total agreement with either.
2. The too many variables in defining each perspective.
3. My refusal to be associated by any ism.
I do find the differences between the traditional view and the open view arguments more about a difference in definitions of metaphysical and philosophical 'perspectives', than a downplaying of Gods Omniscience as traditionalists allege. I do not see Open Theism doubting the veracity of scripture or creeds of 'orthodoxy'.
Many of these differences depend on who defines either doctrine, Molina, Boyd, Augustine, Barth, Pythagoras, Einstein ..? Although very beneficial in advancing a point, and understanding others, I find that defining God by a commentator sometimes limits the reasoning needed for any doctrine of theology, say the Trinity, or 'salvation by grace' - who defines these doctrines? Is it Origen, Jerome, Luther, the Pope, or God? Omniscience, I believe is defined by God and scripture.
I have many books on theology, and my experience is that many traditional commentators are preconditioned by other 'traditional' thinking commentators*, and will attack anything non-traditional (or attack any other denomination than the one they associate with) rather than hearing, reasoning with or contemplating what others are saying. I respect and try to understand their thinking, but I don't know how one theologian can define everything that is 'correct' regarding all of God and His Universe.
(*sometimes they proof text their argument by quoting someone they agree with, attaching a name, I'm not sure that 'proves' a point. Because some arguments are simply the plagiarized mistakes other writers have made .. often that proves some can't think for themselves...)
