The whole point of the Boethian solution was that God’s timeless knowledge is partially comprised of what happens within time, what is temporal in part constitutes what is timeless. Since we can plainly see from the above counter-example that current action can make something timelessly true, I would counter we have no reason to think that God couldn’t base His timeless knowledge on what occurs within time. This is not our reaching into a timeless realm to affect God, but rather He reaching into His creation with and for His understanding.
“…for the Lord searches all hearts and understands every plan and thought.” (1 Chronicles 28:9b)
I explained TNP to my teenage daughter. Once she grasped what was being said she perked up immediately, retorting, “That’s backwards!” She caught the perhaps more fundamental problem immediately. The major fallacy with both the “true proposition” and “God’s knowledge of our choices” versions of TNP is that infallible knowledge and true propositions (as used here) are reflections of reality, not events or necessitating forces. Arguing that true propositions or God’s knowledge somehow make a thing necessary makes about as much sense as arguing that mirrors make you do things when you stand in front of them:
<SATIRE>Stand in front of the mirror, then while looking into it, take some action. You will never do differently than the mirror shows you doing, therefore we can conclude that the mirror makes your actions necessary!</SATIRE>
This is of course, blithering nonsense. The mirror doesn’t drive you to act, it gives off a reflection of what you do -just as (per Boethius) God timelessly knowing based upon what you do, or certain propositions being true because of what you do- are also reflections. Proponents of TNP and other such philosophical voodoo greatly err in putting the metaphysical cart before the figurative horse.
I quote this to illustrate a point about the libertarian perspective. His analogy is that to God and a mirror. The divine mirror is similar to platonic forms. The point here is God’s foreknowledge is that God knows because his knowledge becomes derivative of something else. The reason the acts are known is by observing the mirror. A better metaphor is a crystal ball. Suppose we consider God sans creation. How would God know the future choices of man without them actually making these choices? God-knowledge isn’t a simple correspondence with some exterior reality.
Open Theist Chris Fisher takes the very same prooftext as evidence for his position. He thinks this shows that God knows by looking and seeing what is going on. God knows via inductive inquiry or empirical observation of the world.
The Council 