I think you're both wrong. God's plans have nothing to do with our decisions, good or bad. Tertullian deals with this in Book II of his Contra Marcion. The following is Chapter 7.
"By such a conclusion all is reserved unimpaired to God; both His natural goodness, and the purposes of His governance and foreknowledge, and the abundance of His power. You ought, however, to deduct from God’s attributes both His supreme earnestness of purpose and most excellent truth in His whole creation, if you would cease to inquire whether anything could have happened against the will of God. For, while holding this earnestness and truth of the good God, which are indeed capable of proof from the rational creation, you will not wonder at the fact that God did not interfere to prevent the occurrence of what He wished not to happen, in order that He might keep from harm what He wished. For, since He had once for all allowed (and, as we have shown, worthily allowed) to man freedom of will and mastery of himself, surely He from His very authority in creation permitted these gifts to be enjoyed: to be enjoyed, too, so far as lay in Himself, according to His own character as God, that is, for good (for who would permit anything hostile to himself? ); and, so far as lay in man, according to the impulses of his liberty (for who does not, when giving anything to any one to enjoy, accompany the gift with a permission to enjoy it with all his heart and will? ). The necessary consequence, therefore, was, that God must separate from the liberty which He had once for all bestowed upon man (in other words, keep within Himself), both His foreknowledge and power, through which He might have prevented man’s falling into danger when attempting wrongly to enjoy his liberty. Now, if He had interposed, He would have rescinded the liberty of man’s will, which He had permitted with set purpose, and in goodness. But, suppose God had interposed; suppose Him to have abrogated man’s liberty, by warning him from the tree, and keeping off the subtle serpent from his interview with the woman; would not Marcion then exclaim, What a frivolous, unstable, and faithless Lord, cancelling the gifts He had bestowed! Why did He allow any liberty of will, if He afterwards withdrew it? Why withdraw it after allowing it? Let Him choose where to brand Himself with error, either in His original constitution of man, or in His subsequent abrogation thereof! If He had checked (man’s freedom), would He not then seem to have been rather deceived, through want of foresight into the future? But in giving it full scope, who would not say that He did so in ignorance of the issue of things? God, however, did fore-know that man would make a bad use of his created constitution; and yet what can be so worthy of God as His earnestness of purpose, and the truth of His created works, be they what they may? Man must see, if he failed to make the most of the good gift he had received, how that he was himself guilty in respect of the law which he did not choose to keep, and not that the Lawgiver was committing a fraud against His own law, by not permitting its injunctions to be fulfilled. Whenever you are inclined to indulge in such censure (and it is the most becoming for you) against the Creator, recall gently to your mind in His behalf His earnestness, and endurance, and truth, in having given completeness to His creatures both as rational and good."
The necessary consequence, therefore, was, that God must separate from the liberty which He had once for all bestowed upon man (in other words, keep within Himself), both His foreknowledge and power, ...Tertullian does not deny Divine Foreknowledge; nor do I insist on God's overriding man's freedom. Would Tertullian say that God cannot override it? He merely does not want to, -- separates his power from man, -- just like I said in 2202.
I'm with you so far! :)
For, while holding this earnestness and truth of the good God, which are indeed capable of proof from the rational creation, you will not wonder at the fact that God did not interfere to prevent the occurrence of what He wished not to happen, in order that He might keep from harm what He wished.
Here's my first step off the reservation. :) I would agree that sometimes God lets us lie in the beds we have made, but this says that God never bails us out of trouble and I just know from personal experience that this isn't the case! :)
I know he says later that for God to interpose and bail us out of anything would be to cancel the liberty of the will that God gave us. This honestly reminds me of parents who want to be friends with their young children instead of parents. Do you really see God as such a disinterested parent as Tertullian appears to see Him? From this reading, Tertullian was the uncle who let his nephews use crayons on his walls to allow them self expression. :) Is this right?
...would not Marcion then exclaim, What a frivolous, unstable, and faithless Lord, cancelling the gifts He had bestowed! Why did He allow any liberty of will, if He afterwards withdrew it? Why withdraw it after allowing it?
OH PLEASE! :) I don't know who this Marcion guy was, but it definitely sounds like Tertullian was afraid of him. Common human experience proves how pathetic this argument is, and we don't have nearly the sovereignty over our children that God has over us.
For, since He had once for all allowed (and, as we have shown, worthily allowed) to man freedom of will and mastery of himself,...
God allows man mastery of himself??? Yikes! Why doesn't this idea scare you to death? :)
Man must see, if he failed to make the most of the good gift he had received, how that he was himself guilty in respect of the law which he did not choose to keep, ...
This part I'll buy, but the rest of it... who is this guy? :)
Finally, and in an overall sense, while I would agree that man has the freedom to choose evil, I would say it doesn't start until salvation. Before that, we are dead in sin, and have no choice.