In think we've missed the real foundations of OVT because of the controversy of its conclusions.
The foundation of OVT is found in understanding what God says about Himself and His nature and then putting those things together in a coherent theology of God, and then of the universe.
Perhaps the two largest components of God's nature as revealed in Scripture are that God is just, and God is love. God both demands that His ways and laws be obeyed, and yet God also desires to have a loving relationship with that which He created.
Thus, the only real way that God could have created a world in which this is maximally realized is to create a world where God can reasonably expect that we will obey Him, and yet where a truly loving relationship can exist.
What is a truly loving relationship? It is a relationship that is freely chosen, in spite of options to reject it.
Thus, enter the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (heretofor refered to as TKGE.) The tree was never intended to cause A&E to sin. It was there both as a reminder that God is the creator, and as the option to reject God, if A&E chose to do so. However, A&E were clearly warned not to eat of the tree, or they would surely die.
Thus, we see God's just nature (command to obey) combined with God's loving nature (creating creatures to enter into a loving relationship with) to create a perfect balance, where A&E are commanded and motivated to obey God and refrain from eating from the tree.
In a real sense, OVT is the only theology that can truly say that eating of the tree was not in any sense God's will, that sin was and is never God's will. Which brings in a third element of God's nature: He is Righteous. Only OVT can bring these three together consistently.
But this is only the case if God does not have exhaustive and definite knowledge of the future. One this knowledge is gained, man loses the ability to choose freely, and the tree (and all sin) becomes God's will. We then lose God's just and righteous nature, unless we say that this was God's perfect intent, in which case we lose God's loving and righteous nature.
Now, God also knew that eating of the tree was possible, and knew that God the Son would have to come and die were this to happen. This sacrifice would both be fitting for a God who is loving, and would fulfill the requirements of justice in having a people for Himself, to, again, enter into a loving relationship.
It is really these issues and not whether God has EDF that drive OVT. IT is the conclusions of OVT, including not having EDF, that become the controversy. However, the biblical basis of OVT in God's just and loving nature, along with his righteous nature, really stand unchallenged.
Muz
