The basic conviction that leads me to my position is that I want to affirm the whole of Scripture as literally true unless Scripture itself gives me reason to think it doesn't mean to be taken as literal. There are, of course, many passages of Scripture which suggest that at least some aspects of the future are predestined and/or foreknown. But there are many other passages of Scripture which suggests that at least some aspects of the future are not predestined or foreknown. I figured this out a long time ago without having to read it in an article by some theologian. This is so obvious from scripture that I question how any reasonable person could conclude otherwise. But then again, I'm a pretty smart guy, as much as this fact may pain some people.
BTW, perhaps someone has noted this in this thread but I couldn't see it. These articles (between Piper and Boyd) are now a couple of years old. Both Piper and Boyd pastor large Baptist General Conference churches a few miles apart in the Minneapolis area. A couple of years ago (as a result of Boyd's influential (and to some contoversial) writings), some in the BGC tried to brand Boyd as a 'heretic' or some such and others wanted to amend the statement of faith of the BGC to add an EDF requirement. They used the strongly determinist writings of the eloquent Piper as fuel.
So these two influential pastors, wrote widely and debated passionately and --at length the BGC decided to take no action -- not against Boyd, not to add a 'detailed foreknowledge' requirement to their statement of faith, nothing.
Boyd continues to pastor his BGC church and teach at the BGC college and Piper continues to pastor his BGC church in the same area.
What a concept! Two Christian leaders can disagree deeply on their understanding of the Bible and yet manage not to call one another names. Perhaps something akin to the 'new attitude' here.