The last line says, "God foreknows the future because God foreordained the future."
Shouldn't it say, "God foreknows the future because God is omniscient?"
The way it is worded suggests strongly the dependence of God's knowledge on his omnipotence. The other highlighted sections add to that interpretation.
Blowing into the wind! Trying to figure out God? I would say it's pretentious -- to the max. But not surprising. "My thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways" says the Lord. Ours is not to solve the Mystery of God. Maybe it's time to spit out that peace of the forbidden fruit lest we think we are just like God.
Again, I do not see any such thing. Look at the sentence again:
"God foreknows the future because God foreordained the future."
That could also be said this way with no change in meaning:
God foreordained the future, therefore He foreknows the future.
To say that foreknowledge is dependent on omnipotence can be reduced to saying that knowledge is dependent on power, when the old saying is that Knowledge IS Power. Can you truly say that if one is powerless, that they are therefore without knowledge? Or that If they have no knowledge, they therefore necessarily have no power? I don't see that either of those comparisons can be called truisms. The one does not follow from the other. A logical fallacy, if you will; A false causality. You're trying to draw a parallel where none exists.