Free Will DEBATE | Jeremiah Nortier vs @AKRichardson

Debate Introduction and Moderator Credentials

Well, welcome welcome everybody to tonight's debate if all of you back in the back could make your way in here and get some seats. We're excited to have all of you joining us tonight both in person. Plus we have all of you online tonight.

Joining us. Thank you for being with us. My name for those of you that don't know me is Nathan Hargrave and I serve here at 12 five church as an elder and here in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Where we we are.

Well, really the only Reformed Baptist Church in all of Jonesboro. And if you are near this area, we would love for you to come and worship with us every Sunday morning at 10 a .m. And Wednesday at 6 30 p .m.

And you can find out more about This church at twelve five church. Calm that is the word twelve the number five church calm. Yes, we like to make it complicated. But be sure to follow us on YouTube channel where you're able to keep up with what is being taught here at twelve five.

But tonight I get the privilege of moderating this exciting debate. The proposition that has been put forward tonight is as follows man has libertarian free will and in the affirmative we have the one and only Aka Richardson.

Aka, he grew up just an hour west of here in Batesville, Arkansas. If I'm correct, and he has he's been in public ministry now for 12 years his wife of 15 years Daniella is with us tonight joining in support of her husband and their two children.

Vera is that say it right? Vera, okay. I'm sorry Vera and Isaac. And and a K's main focus is teaching and he teaches in Cave City, Arkansas. Currently, and he also has a YouTube channel. We will put a link to his channel below if you're with us online or you can just search a Kate Richardson and on his channel he discusses various theological topics.

So please go and and check out his his content. Again a K will be taking the Affirmative to the proposition that man has libertarian free will and in the negative. We have our very own the apologetic dog Jeremiah nortier.

Jeremiah if you don't know him yet has grown up right here in Jonesboro, Arkansas. And he also serves as an elder right here with me at twelve five church him and his wife out. They have a baby boy JJ nortier.

I how old JJ now eight months. JJ nortier also known as around here the apologetic puppy. So so they they their family is very dear to us. But Jeremiah's love for apologetics his love for theology and for God's people can be seen in Both his local ministry here with us and on his online ministry the apologetic dog so be sure to like and subscribe so you can be alerted with all of the content that he is regularly putting out and I know that you'll be blessed and Encouraged by his ministry and if you if you have been blessed by his content I encourage you Please go to his patreon and we'll have that listed below also where you can help support him in this Ministry this type of content.

It doesn't just happen. It's not free to create and to and to provide all of the things involved in that it takes brothers and sisters like yourself to Play a role and a part in that and we appreciate your support.

But one way that you can support is at the end of tonight's debate. We will be taking questions from the audience. Both live and in person and for those of you that are online if you have a question, please Listen here.

You need to preface it with the letter Q. Okay, you put that first that way it lets us know that that you're asking a question and make sure to address it to Either a K or Jeremiah, whichever one you're wanting to ask or answer your question.

But if you want to be sure that your question does get asked you can support this ministry through a super chat. Meaning you can give financially with a question and that will definitely push you up into Getting that question asked to both a K and Jeremiah at the end of the night.

You can ask any question at any time. But remember you we will be addressing them at the end and with all of the introduction out of the way. Let's go to the Lord and prayer and let's ask that he would bless this night.

That that truth would would go forward dear Heavenly Father. We come to you tonight and we thank you we thank you for Who you are we thank you for your word and how how it is clear Lord, I pray that we would would be able to to Learn and see in that word what it is that you are telling us Lord, I pray that you would work in tonight both in person for those here and online.

For those that are watching and will be watching in the future. I pray that this would be an edifying encouraging challenging. I pray that your children would hear the truth and and and Grow and be sanctified through it.

We thank you for this opportunity and be honored in tonight in Christ's name. Amen. Well without further ado, let's dive in tonight's debate. We'll be starting with our opening statements. Each gentleman will be given 20 minutes to state their case in each of their stated positions.

We will start with the affirmative Aka the floor is yours. I will start the clock as soon as you begin your opening statement.

Okay. Now do I gotta connect it again?

Yes. Yes, you'll just do the airdrop. Or not the airdrop the mirroring. Oh.

Okay, there you go.

All right. Okay, I'm gonna wait you get the timer. All right. Well, all right, so. Good evening to everybody. It's good to be here and I am thankful to take the non-Calvinist side of the debate the opportunity.

Thankful for it. Although I have disappointed many of the Calvinist that know me because they saw the beard growing and they thought he's coming on over.

But.

No, I keep the mustache shave. So now the Amish are excited. But no, I am I am thankful for the opportunity. And now I do want to say to all those here and watching that are reformed. Nothing, I will say here is meant to be of any ill will towards you.

I do speak fervently matter-of-factly and a pretty passionate but you know, I am here to attempt to convince you that my position is true, but. And I do believe Calvinism is unbiblical. But I know that if you do believe those things you're not trying to be unbiblical any more than I'm trying to be unbiblical.

So it is not personal. But I did want to say that so I hope you'll keep that in mind. Now what I want to do is start with some clarity and I think clarity goes a long way in a debate before I even Get to my arguments.

So what I'm gonna this is gonna blow away. I'll sit here for now. What I want to do is start with some definitions. Okay, so the will we talk about the will of man. What is the will. Pretty simply it is the power of the mind to choose?

Okay, but what about libertarian free will now I will argue in this debate that libertarian free Will it's just a fancy way of saying real free. Well, I will argue that if it's not libertarian free. Well, it's not really free in any meaningful sense but a definition.

Would be that it is the ability to choose without prior or external causal Determination in other words your choices are ultimately up to you. So that you are the ultimate chooser. Nothing outside of you is necessitating your your choices now.

So by contrast compatibilism of Calvinism says that God ultimately chooses every choice that you makes and determines them through an unchangeable means and secondary means. So that every choice that you make God is ultimately determined what that choice will be.

For which you were held responsible so libertarian free will it just says God gave you the freedom to choose and it's up to you and you were held responsible because of that freedom so Continuing with the contrast to Westminster confession of faith, which I think Jeremiah told me he affirms.

Says that God decreed from all eternity. Unchangeably all things. Whatsoever comes to pass now all things includes every choice that you make. What clothes you're wearing tonight. What seat you sat in more importantly it includes every moral choice.

That you'll ever make for which you'll be held accountable. And your intentions and your motives and every thought of your heart was determined by God and notice that it is unchangeable. This means there is no human power to choose other than what God determined you would choose and You will be held responsible for it.

But.

Libertarian free will says. As Tozer put it God did not decide what choice that you would make but that you would be free to make.

It.

Okay now on that note I want to just for the sake of clarity again give you some general points about my view and I think this in the long Run will be helpful, so it is my view that God in the good pleasure of his own will Created man with libertarian freedom to choose.

In other words This is a debate about what God has done with his creature man. How has he created his will? What is the nature of the freedom he gave him and this impacts the practicality of our responsibility before God?

So this is God's doing that's what we're debating. Also, it is my view that God eternally purposed to save unworthy sinners who freely Libertarian Lee so choose to put their faith in Jesus Christ. It is my view that though God desires that all people would repent and Be saved it is not his chosen purpose To save those who do not freely choose to repent and believe in Christ.

In other words God has that which would please him that all people would repent and be saved and he desires that but has not Purposed to save those who do not make the choice to repent and believe. It is my view that not desiring to determine man's will God who is beyond wise enough and sovereign enough works out his purpose and counsel through evil evil men and also of his own people without Determining their will.

In other words God does not need to determine man's will in order to accomplish his own. In other words God does not need to determine the moves on both sides of the chessboard in order to win the game or to Accomplish the strategies that he plans.

He leaves freedom for the other the opponent of the chessboard and he can still win and accomplish all his strategies. Now it's important to note that Calvinist of course would agree with some of this statement here in the last part.

The form the reform do believe that God works out his good purposes through evil now the difference is He also causally determines it now to me. That's unreasonable and Diminishes his character not that Calvinists are trying to do that.

But to me that's like a fire house that sets fire to an apartment complex. And then saves the people from the fire and then puts the fire out. I find that unreasonable and I believe that does diminish his character.

Now a couple more minutes before I get to my arguments because this is very important. Let's talk about the point of Disagreement now in my in my years now you may disagree in your experience. But in my experience in all the years of having this conversation and debates.

My Calvinist friends will spend so much time on points where nobody disagrees. So I want to get the framework for the debate set on the right track. So let's talk about sovereignty now. Nobody disagrees that God is sovereignty.

He he rules over every aspect of his creation. So we all agree he's sovereign now what we disagree on is What God does in his sovereignty does he determine all things in his sovereignty or not? But so much of the time my Calvinist friends will talk about free will versus sovereignty.

You know is God really sovereign these kinds of things and no that's that's not the issue. We all believe he's sovereign, but I'm going to give you some examples now in one of his videos Jeremiah at least framed the debate in this way ten times or so.

Again, I know he's trying he's being honest and he's trying to represent it. Well, but I think that is incorrect. So for example, he said even there now this is referencing before the fall. He said even there free will that wasn't marred by sin does not negate the sovereignty of God.

Well, I agree I don't believe free will ever negates the sovereignty of God. Otherwise, he couldn't punish you for the choices that you make. But that's a wrong framework. He also said that this libertarian freedom now, that's the view I hold says that I'm free to do otherwise and basically God is not sovereign in that moment.

But that's that's incorrect unless you assume sovereignty means determinism and that's not the definition. In fact, I use Jeremiah's definition. He rules over every aspect of his creation, but does he determine all things?

That's the debate. So what I want you to do as an interested audience, you know, you're interested in these matters. I want you to listen for Jeremiah to frame the debate that way again, not that he does does it intentionally.

I'm saying listen for that because you will know we're getting off track because we're not debating his sovereignty. We're debating determinism. I'll give you one more example now a prominent Calvinist whom I respect James White.

He said he stood on this very stage. According to him if you don't believe in unconditional election then quote you don't believe in the sovereignty of God now. That's just not true. Unless you assumed Sovereignty means determinism.

That is the debate. What is determinism true? That's the issue not sovereignty.

But.

So now as we begin to go to the Bible, you know from front cover to back cover God is presenting men with choices and he's presenting them with Judgment and punishment and he's holding them guilty. But you know every bit of that is evidence of libertarian freedom.

Why. Because responsibility and culpability presuppose libertarian free will. Absolutely every aspect of your life. You can't make sense of somebody being guilty or punished for things. They cannot control.

So if a woman's drink is drugged so that she's she becomes in a state of mind by some man. To do things she shouldn't do and wouldn't otherwise do if we find out about that. We don't blame the woman. We blame the man.

Why. Because we presuppose libertarian free will when we hold people responsible. He was the ultimate chooser the man in the analogy. Otherwise in Calvinism God holds man responsible for what God controls and decides.

Remember unchangeable and unchangeable means all right, so now let's get to. Some biblical evidence here and a specific look now actually these scriptures affirm libertarian free will. I believe in a variety of different ways.

I try to be very selective and not to overwhelm Jeremiah with just way too many scriptures. Not that he will have an obligation to address them in his opening, but nevertheless I do have just a select few here so for example 1st Corinthians chapter 10 now in this chapter Paul is addressing the Corinthians temptations to idolatry.

In verse 13 he says no temptation has overtaken you. But such as is common to man, but God is faithful. Okay. God is faithful to do what? Who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able now notice the word able there's an ability man has according to God's faithfulness He says but with the temptation will provide a way of escape also so that you will be able to endure it.

There's the word able again. Now if libertarian free will is true that kind of just stands as it says. But if it is not and the alternative of the debate is true. Then when you succumb to temptation and you sin it was unchangeably determined that you would.

So there was no way of escape you did not have a human power to choose other than what you did. But the whole point of the statement is to say when you sin you didn't have to do it. That's why you're guilty, but if compatibilism is true.

Actually, no when you sin There's nothing you could have done because God is a lot powerful more powerful than we are and it's an unchangeable decree and The whole point it Calvinism turns the text on its head because the whole point is to say You don't have to sin when you do there's a way out.

Okay, Ezekiel chapter 18 now speaking about rebellious Israel. God says cast away from yourselves all your transgressions and Which you have committed to make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit now.

Why will you die. Oh house of Israel for I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies declares the Lord Yahweh. Now this is a judgment passage as most of it is in the prophets. So God is saying the end result is going to be your death and judgment.

I don't desire that stop doing what you're doing. But that makes sense of libertarian free will is true because they don't have to do what they're doing they they can choose to stop but If the alternative is true They're doing exactly what God determined that they would do.

But God is saying you stop doing what you're doing to get a different result that that I would desire more. But if Calvinism is true, of course and libertarian free will isn't true, then God would be saying Stop doing what I have unchangeably determined that you would do so that the end result that I determined for you would not him.

Would not come to pass. You see. It's a rationality, you know, and the human mind is is naturally trained. To detect error by irrationality, it's always a way to detect error always in every aspect of life.

Okay, but okay. So 2nd Peter chapter 3 now. This is the passage about the delay of the Lord's coming in verse 9. It says the Lord is not slow about his promise as some consider slowness, but is patient toward you.

Not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. I want to focus on the word patient. God is patience that the amount of time that goes by seems to be long because God is being patient and Verse 15 says and consider the patience of our Lord as salvation.

Now I got to ask the question. Well first I'll say that I believe this is libertarian free will verse because it kind of just says what it says. But if libertarian free will is not true. I got to ask the question.

What is God being patient with? Because all things that occur were determined by God. So God is being patience with the very things that he determined. So ultimately God is being patient with himself.

I find that unreasonable. I think that's a libertarian free will verse. Okay in Jeremiah chapter 18, I'll paraphrase this but I think we all know the story about the Potter. He tells Jeremiah to go see the Potter at work and Jeremiah looks and the Potter is making a vessel and then the and then the Potter Changes the shape of it and it says and he changed it as he wanted to.

What's the analogy? Did the Potter make a mistake? No, actually it goes on to say God says Here's what I will tell nations if I tell you that I'm going to pluck up and destroy if that nation Repents of the evil then I will repent of the destruction that I promised.

I'm paraphrasing likewise if I promise blessings to a nation if it turns from its righteousness I will repent of the blessings that I promised it the whole point of the Figure of changing the vessel in the middle of work, and it means God is going to change.

God is more than happy to react. He's got no problem with that. And he says that the nation turns into wickedness. I would change the plans I have for it. That's not determinism. Otherwise the nation is doing exactly what he determined them to do in the first place.

But in the analogy remember that the vessel is shaped and changed in the middle of the work. If determinism is true, the vessel should have been the same way from the beginning. Okay, Jeremiah chapter 19.

Now concerning rebellious Israel. This is a pretty bad practice of theirs. They burn their own children in the fires to a false God Baal. God says they have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons and the fire has burnt offering to Baal a Thing which I never commanded nor spoke of.

Nor did it ever come upon my heart. Now what does it mean that it never came upon his heart? Never it doesn't mean he never thought about it or knew about it because he actually talked about it before.

No, it's a contrast between the outward expression of speaking and commanding. He said I didn't command it nor did I speak it. In other words I didn't outwardly tell them this was my will. Nor did it come upon my heart meaning it wasn't a secret unspoken desire of mine.

They didn't hear me command them. They can't use that excuse. They didn't hear me speak about it. So they can't use that excuse and it certainly wasn't some silent intention I had for them.

If.

Libertarian free will is true. It makes sense for what it says, but if the alternative is true, of course. It originated in God's heart. It originated in his heart. It's completely the opposite of what the verse is saying now.

Matthew chapter 23 verse 37. I think a lot of people knew this was coming. Jesus says Jerusalem Jerusalem who kills the prophets and Stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her Wings and you did not want it.

Now this is a judgment passage once again and judgment came in 80 70 40 years later. But he says this judgment is coming because you did not want it. But if compatibilism is true he didn't want it. But he left that part out.

In fact, he said the opposite. He said how often I did want it, which means it didn't happen if it was often. But he's saying you didn't want it. Otherwise, he's going to bring judgment upon them for what he willed for them to be willing to do.

John chapter 5. Jesus is speaking to the unbelieving Jews. He has a lot to say in verse 34. He says but I say these things so that you may be saved. Okay, so he teaches God's words and revelations so that they can be saved.

That means they are enabled to believe by the things that he says. Now the problem is just six verses later in verse 40. He says and you are unwilling to come to me that you may have life. Libertarian free will if it's true kind of just says what it says.

They could believe because of what he teaches and what he says. But they're not willing to do it. But now if the alternative is true, it's because he's unwilling. But he says you are unwilling and we know that he actually was willing.

Because he said I say these things so that you may be saved. But if libertarian free will isn't true and compatibilism is I have to ask the question How may they be saved by the things that he says if he determined they would not be saved by the things that he says?

The truth is that's contradictory. And contradictions are false. I know no, you know my reformed friends my Calvinist friends. And if you're reformed, I know you're not trying to be false, but it is the ultimate implication of what you believe.

Proverbs chapter 16. There are several of chapter 16 like this, but I chose verse 9. It says the heart of man plans his way. But Yahweh directs his steps. Well, that's libertarian free will. Man is planning his way in his heart.

God will direct his steps. You see God does not need to determine your will in order to accomplish his own even through you think about Jonah. Now Jonah planned in his heart to run from God's command to preach to Nineveh, but God got him there.

Anyway, you know the story you say he didn't need to determine his will. He knows how to get a man to do it. Anyway.

Now.

Of course, it's ironic if you think about that story in light of compatibilism because he determined for Jonah to run from his commandment Commandment punish him for doing what he determined him to do which was run and then determined for him to change his mind and go.

No, I think that's a bit unreasonable. It's a libertarian free will. God doesn't need to determine your will.

Now.

It says the heart of man plans his way and compatibilism. God's doing both actually so you lose the contrast.

But.

As I said though this really is a debate about obviously we could say well what the Bible says that that goes without saying. We both are going to argue from Scripture. But in summary, I will say that I believe Calvinism is unbiblical.

That's obviously what I've tried to convince you of. I think it is irrational and I think it diminishes the character of God unintentionally, so of course. But I know you disagree. You may disagree, but I ask that you will just consider and that is my time.

Thank You a K. We will now hear from the negative as Jeremiah has 20 minutes for his opening statement. Jeremiah the floor is yours. I will start the clock as soon as you begin.

Testing testing. Well, just thank you. I just want to thank you all for being here this evening for a lovely debate. I have a lot of respect for a K you see how professionally is. Just want to thank you for choosing to be here.

It's irresistible and it was predestined before the foundation of the world. So let's get into it. I want to begin by affirming that free will is biblical. I want to partially quote one of the last verses that you heard a K Proverbs 16 9 just the first part.

We'll get into the rest. The heart of a man Plans his way. That's free will. Biblical free will affirms that man makes genuine choices according to his heart's desire that mean he deliberates. He thinks about what he wants to do and he is responsible for what he chooses to do.

I believe libertarian free will is not that this is a Something much different. This is a philosophical idea like he was getting into that asserts human responsibility. Moral agency is mutually exclusive with divine determinism.

Me and him are on the same page. Libertarian free will Affirms what's called in? Compatibilism and so I was watching a number of a case programs. I felt like I know him. I've watched so much of his content lately.

I liked how he defined libertarian free will. He says it's man's ability to be the first cause of one's choices. He is ultimate. Okay, so I think that's a good workable definition for this debate this evening along with what he said but in contrast, I think libertarian free will according the scripture is the Conditional ability to be the proximate cause of one's choices.

This means that man's decision is not Ultimate and so my main argument this evening is libertarian free will is false because of who God is. And so I hope to demonstrate to to you this foundational view of who God is according to his word.

But before I do that, I want to present four arguments. Why I think libertarian free will is false on its own terms. And so argument number one is the problem of ability. This typically asserts that moral agents are first or have ultimate ability to choose otherwise regardless of all antecedent conditions being just as they are at the moment of choice.

This will be important for the debate. This is called categorical ability and categorical ability must maintain that at the moment of choice. Nothing can be determined beforehand. And so I would include this is probably where you will see a little disagreement but that would include reasons and Evidences and so if that is true if he if he denies that his ultimate choice is not determined by reason and evidences.

I believe this is an irrational position. I can illustrate it this way. Okay, why did you come debate this evening if someone said just cuz I would say that's not a cogent answer. Why did you come? Well, if the answer is to muzzle the apologetic dog with my reasons and my arguments, I'm gonna say great.

That's a conditional ability not a categorical ability. That is no longer libertarian free will but that is compatibilistic free will. His choices would be determined by his Actions or his actions would be determined by his choices and his choices would be determined by his reasons.

And so I believe the first problem is the problem of ability. My second argument is the problem of freedom and the fallacy of unification. Libertarian free will often asserts that man cannot be free Morally accountable if God has predetermined their decisions.

I believe this type of phraseology equivocates on the word free it is ambiguous at best this will occasionally mean conditional ability or Categorical ability. Now we'll get more into those terms. But categorical ability says all things being equal inside and out.

I have the ability to choose a or not a. Conditional ability says if I want to choose a I can but if I want to choose B, I can do that. Also, that's a that's a condition based on reasons and evidences and desire.

I believe just saying man has libertarian free will only if God cannot determine begs the question of incompatibilism. This also assumes a particular nation a relationship between God and man. Libertarian free will commits the fallacy of unification.

That means that man's ability of choice is identical with God's ability of choice. I believe this is irrational. I believe more fundamentally. This is unbiblical because God is transcendent eternal absolute Immutable self-existing all-powerful and all-knowing and so much more can be said there.

Man is made in God's image and please hear me. He cannot reflect the attributes of God. Identically or one-to-one the same man would no longer be an image bearer or a reflection. He would be an exact copy in some of these attributes.

Man is not God man is created. He is temporal. He is changing. He is derivative. He is limited of power and he is limited in knowledge. And so if we unificate the will and choice of the creature with the Creator then that will have Devastating effects effects on the absolute the the necessary attributes of God.

And so to put it another way libertarian free will if it were true God could not be immutable. He would not be and could not be absolute. He would not be all-knowing or all-powerful. Now. You may say hold up Jeremiah.

What do you mean? Why is it the case if libertarian free will is true then God can't be omniscient or omnipotent. Well my third argument I want to address these things the problem of libertarian free will with God's foreknowledge if God has Exhaustive knowledge of all future events before they occur then at the moment of a person's choice That person can only choose what God infallibly knows to be certain.

This is a problem for the philosophical idea of libertarian free will because God's knowledge and his predetermination Go hand in hand. They are not identical, but they are inextricably connected together.

God knows what he predetermines and he predetermines what he knows. If God's knowledge is diminished in any way well there there goes his Predetermination and if someone demands that they have categorical ability apart from God's predetermination.

Then you've been just damaged his omniscience and he would therefore not possess absolute foreknowledge. That is why many advocates of libertarian free will are open theist. That says God does not know the future and their central argument is God is so sovereign That he can choose not to know some things.

Now this evening AK does not believe in open theism, and I deny hyper Calvinism. So we are in good company this evening. So I understand really what AK is more arguing. We're gonna see sparks fly probably is argument number four the problem of libertarian free will with God's omnipotence and sovereignty.

Okay, when scripture says Jesus is the only sovereign this means that he rules with Transcendent power he is king of kings. He is Lord of lords and when scripture declares hallelujah for the Lord our God Almighty the omnipotent reigns.

This is talking about how God is all Powerful meaning that his power is without limit. And so many advocates of libertarian free will will say well God is so sovereign enough that he can limit himself in some way To create libertarian free will and give it to humans.

And so I want to pause and say am I really to believe that God's power of choice is so limitless That he can limit himself. I would say no way. God cannot deny himself. Ah, but Jeremiah Jesus limited himself when he became man I would say listen the doctrine of kenosis Christ self emptying when he took on flesh.

It's not a limitation, but a revelation so hopefully we can get more into that, but these four arguments I just want to sum up again the problem of categorical ability Reduces down to arbitrariness. That's number one number two that kind of free will begs the question of incompatibilism and commits the fallacy of Unification that kind of relationship between God and man will collapse God's necessary Attributes like I mentioned in argument number three his omniscience goes away and argument number four his omnipotence and sovereignty Goes away, and so even with these four arguments I think there's an even better one libertarian free will is false because of who God is.

So I hope we get into this, but God is eternal omnipotent omniscient and he has Determined to create this entire world with every event. That's going to take place. And if you affirm these classical attributes of God then this necessarily means that God Determined everything that would come to pass in a very particular manner the end all the way from the beginning.

And so what does scripture say about who God is and who man is well that verse that a K quoted earlier? I'm glad we're kind of camping on this the heart of a man Plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.

This is a wise saying about man's actions and our plan from his inner desire and that is compatible with God's Directing God establishing and literally determining his steps, and so we asked the question Jeremiah How is that possible?

That is only possible because God and man are not the same. God has the ability to make eternal choices and man has the ability to make temporal choices. And please hear me here a human cannot determine another humans actions without using some kind of force manipulation or Coercion, but God's choices are categorically different than man's.

God has an eternal choice and that eternal choice Grounds meaning and purpose of all temporal events that happen in this created world. So God's choice is different than man's choice and listen. There is no force that we would accuse God of wrongdoing.

There is no manipulation. There is no coercion and there is no contradiction. Yeah, but Jeremiah the book of Proverbs is poetic so you can't take it that literally that's fun. Let's look at a historical count in the book of Genesis with the life of Joseph.