How can Man be Responsible for his Actions when all that he does has been Ordained and Decreed of God?

[Alan Dale Gross]

"WHY MAN IS RESPONSIBLE?"

"The question is, then, how can man be responsible for his actions when all that he does has been Ordained and Decreed of God? This is not a new question. It is at least as old as the New Testament, and probably much older.

"Paul anticipated this question from his readers when he penned the wonderful ninth chapter of Romans.

"He said. "Thou will say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will."

And Paul's reply was: "Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

"Shall the thing Formed say to Him that Formed it, Why didst Thou Make me thus?

"Or hath not the Potter a right over the clay,
from the same lump to make one part a Vessel unto Honor, and another unto Dishonor."

"Paul's mentioning of this question and his reply show conclusively that Paul taught the Absolute Sovereignty of God. Indeed his preceding words clearly teach it. Paul made the reply that he did because he anticipated the question as coming from an objector. When it comes as a reverent inquiry, it deserves more detailed consideration. Paul's reply had to be brief because his time and purpose would not permit a lengthy discussion. Our time permits and our purpose demands a fuller discussion.

"Man is Responsible for his actions,
notwithstanding the fact that God has Decreed all that Comes to Pass, for at least three reasons:

"1. God's Decree Concerning Sin is Not Causative but Permissive, Directive, Preventive, and Determinative.

"God Decreed that sin should come in the world, for Reasons that are fully Known only to Him, but He decreed that it should come by man's own Free Choice. God does not compel man to sin, but He allows it.

"Man, and not God, is the Efficient Cause of sin; and for that reason man is Responsible.

"Before passing it needs to be remarked that no objections can be brought against the statement that God Decreed that sin should come into the world that cannot be brought against God's actual Permission of sin, unless the objector takes the position that God was powerless to prevent the entrance of sin. This would be a denial of God's Omnipotence and Sovereignty, and would render the objector unworthy of consideration here.

"God's Omnipotence and Sovereignty teaches us that whatever God Permits He Permits because He Wills to do so. And since God is Immutable, His Will has always been the same. What He Wills at any time He has Willed from all Eternity. Therefore, His Will Equals His Purpose and His Purpose Equals His Decree.

"2. The Law of God and Not His Decree Fixes Man's Duty and Responsibility.

"The Law of God is man's Guide and Standard. This is God's Revealed Will. God's Decree is His Secret Will. Man has nothing to do with this except to know and acknowledge the facts concerning it. "

"The secret things belong unto Jehovah, our God;
but things that are Revealed belong unto us and to our children Forever,
that we may do all the Words of this Law" (Deut. 29:29).

"3. The Motive Back of Man's Sinning Makes Him Responsible."

"Why does man sin? Is it because he always wants to do the Will of God? No, never so.

"Why did men crucify Christ? Was it because they believed that God had sent Him to die as a Sin-Bearer? No.

"It was because they hated Him. They crucified Him through wicked motives.

"It is in this way that man always sins. Sin proceeds from man's love of darkness (John 3:19)."

From: HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY.


NEW THREAD: How can Man be Responsible for not fully Obeying the Law of God
and for not Receiving the Gospel when it is said he is unable by Nature to do either?

 

[timf]

Here is an interesting article on why man has free will and the consequences.

Robots in Revolt

A favorite science fiction theme is robots. This imagery can be useful for a mental simulation exercise that can illustrate man’s relation to God. If we think of God as an inventor and humans as robots, the first choice God would face was whether or not his robots would be programmed to follow his instructions or have the option to make their own choices.

A human inventor would be unlikely to allow his robots to act on their own as he would recognize the possibility and even likelihood that his invention could kill him. While humans cannot kill God, our running amok would serve no divine purpose. A key element in the design choice to give free will to the robots would be to devise a way for what is created to use their free will to recognize that it is in their best interest to align their choices with that of their creator.

Since the robots could not be programmed to know what is best, they would have to discover it for themselves. Since living for self is both destructive to others as well as oneself, and living for others is the discovery of love, one would think that an observant robot would quickly align himself with the desires of his creator and be able to escape the misery of making bad choices.

Many of the robots experiencing the pain of suffering would question if there was an inventor, why he would allow them to suffer. They fail to recognize that they were not created to experience comfort and ease, but to choose between selfishness and selflessness. The heart of the inventor would be grieved by the pain his robots experienced from the suffering they inflicted on themselves and others.

The inventor could choose some robots to communicate with so that they could tell others what was expected of them. He might pick one robot from whom generations of robots would accumulate his words. He might give them a list of rules and ask them to follow them. He might even communicate with some over time telling them what would happen in the future. He might even send his son to live among them to show them the way out of the suffering they persist in inflicting on themselves.

Those robots that managed to hear about the inventor and learn from his words what was expected would be able to see the world in truth. Truth can shatter the delusions of pride. Truth can bring shame for the harm caused to others. Truth can open eyes to reality. Truth can grow and become the way a robot can be connected to his inventor.

At a future point when all the robots have been deactivated, the inventor can identify those who trusted in the truth and reactivate them because they have learned to use their free will to choose the will of the inventor. There would be no need to reactivate those robots who could not give up seeking after self.

While stories about robots can be entertaining, they can also be used as an illustration to help us understand the purpose and goal of our existence. They can also help us understand why we have to endure for now the consequence of those “robots” who rebel against their creator.

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. - 1 Timothy 2:3-4

 

[Armchair Apologist]

In our congregation, we do not take a dogmatic stance either way regarding Calvinism nor do we make such any sort of issue. I am moderately Calvinistic but there are other leaders who are not.

With all this said, I adamantly teach that "God decrees all things which come to pass" which many who are non-Calvinistic may wince at but when properly understood, this statement is either true or God is not God!

I typically make the follow-up statement that "Nothing happens of which God is not aware and nothing happens of which God does not allow" and upon doing so, the tension in the room dramatically relaxes and we can civilly discuss the implications of such a statement.

IMO, the OP makes a good explanation of this.