This position is either nonsensical or pointedly refuses to delve into the mechanics of the statement.
Just as with the Calvinist-Arminian debates, the problem is not simply predestination versus free agency, but Calvinistic predestination and free agency versus Arminian predestination and free agency, even so here the question is not whether both are true statements, but rather in what manner both statements are true. I have already argued my position, so I will refrain from repeating the arguments here.
'Jeremiah 33:20-21 clarifies that God's promise is conditional; "If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night so that day and night cease to come at their regular time, 21 then also My covenant with My servant David may be broken so that he will not have a son reigning on his throne, and the Levitical priests will not be My ministers."
"He then says that despite this condition--broken again and again by the Israelites"
"Once again I point out that Jer. 33:17-20's promise of an eternal line of Levites is conditional, and argue that the fact of a second priest in the order of Melchizedek, Jesus Christ, proves the breaking of the conditions set for the Levites' 'eternal lineage'--"when there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of law as well"--Christ replaced the Levites, just as the New replaced the Old Covenant."
I apologize for coming in late but I have been following this debate and I see you assert that the covenant with the day and night has been broken repeatedly and therefore God's covenant with the house of David and the house of Levi has been broken. Would you be so kind as to point out where that covenant has been broken?
I do however get involved in predestination v free will debates which has two aspects - Scriptures and geometric physics.