His arguments are biblically sound, solidly reasoned, and logically presented.
His definition of foreknowledge is proven right by understanding that in light of the persecution faced by the Christians to whom Peter was writing in 1 Peter, Peter's entire basis of encouragement to them is based upon this understanding that God had "pre determined to have a love relationship" with them and that none of the sufferings they faced could ever affect their sure standing before God in any way.
The Arminian view destroys Peter's real source of support and encouragement to these people.
"God does not say that He foreknew the decisions that individuals would make, but rather, He foreknew the individuals themselves."
This is a conmmonly expressed thought here on FR..that God foreknew the actions and then He predestinated them...It is entirely silly good..Do the English "Elect" their King? And even if they did what difference would it make, he was born Royality and was born to be King? Same with the "elect". And it is usually the Arminians that say hell they decided for Christ so He decided for them...