Dr.White gives Skan the answer sheet before the debate

I have not listened to the whole video, but I did listen to a part of it dealing with the definition of the word "choice."

First, Dr. White defined it as "biblical choice." Ok so far.

Then Dr. White gave an example of a non-choice where God was bringing about His predetermined plan, the crucifixion of Christ.

This was followed by ad homenims, his opposite was "inconsistent" or an "open theist."

His last on topic point dealt with God's knowledge. Unstated is the view that since God knows the future exhaustively, then the future is fixed with whatsoever comes to pass being predestined by God. This argument then says "biblical choice" really is "non-choice" as everything is predetermined, like the crucifixion of Christ.

But where was the discussion of God setting the choice of life or death before us, and begging us to choose life? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind...

 

Ok, I listened to another segment. This time the topic was the definition of "creaturely freedom." Here the concept that our freedom is within the purview of what God allows. His constraints limit or overrule our choices. And our choices are not autonomous, because our creaturely nature means we can only make ungodly choices. Plus, according to Dr. White, it would be impossible for us to exercise autonomous choices within the purview God allows. Thus it is an all or nothing argument, either we are completely autonomous or have no autonomy.

Needless to say, this argument too is underwhelming. So we have a two for two - choice equals non-choice, and creaturely freedom equals creaturely non-freedom.