Why Responsibility Is Necessary

Moral responsibility, or free choice as it has been called (I prefer moral responsibility because it suggests that we have the right to choose actions that are either moral or immoral, whereas free choice assumes that we can make choices in regard to anything - clearly there are choices we cant make such as becoming invisible, flying, etc.), actually fits the character of God better than a world without any moral choice.  Most people look at moral responsibility as if it works against God.  They argue that God must be limited if He cannot control man's actions.  However, last time it was argued that things that go against the nature and character of God do not count against His sovereignty, otherwise there could not be such a thing as sovereignty (sovereignty is self-contradictory without some parameters).

Without any moral responsibility it would be impossible to see God as truly holy.  The bane of absolute sovereignty is the question of the origin of sin.  If man is not responsible for making his own free choices in regard to morality then where did sin originate?  If man did not make the choice to sin then someone or something else made that choice for him.  Now, it can be argued, as many have attempted and failed, that Satan caused man to sin.  However, this is circular.  If Satan caused man to sin then who caused Satan to sin?  Even noted pastor and author R.C. Sproul has been forced to admit that without moral responsibility there is no answer to this question.  However, he is wrong.  There is a solution; it is just not one that opponents of moral responsibility want to take.  Apart from a concept such as moral responsibility, where free creatures make moral choices, the only other possible solution for the origination of sin is God.  However, Scripture is clear that this is impossible (James 1:13-18).  So then, the elimination of moral responsibility compromises a case for the holiness of God because He then becomes the originated, proprietor, and dispenser of sin.

It is clear throughout Scripture that God offers man the right and responsibility to choose moral actions (Joshua 24:15; Acts 7:51-53).  Conversely, when man does not choose moral actions he chooses immoral actions (amoral actions aside).  These moral choices are what justify and vindicate the character of God.  How can God righteously judge and sentence to Hell men who committed acts of immorality that they were forced to commit?  If God forced men either to be righteous or unrighteous, and such a person must argue if moral responsibility is eliminated, then how can God be considered just for sentencing sins that He forced His creatures to commit?  This does not meet any definition of justice known and is illogical.  However, if God gave men a choice, either to choose Him or to reject Him, and men chose to reject Him and do what was contradictory to His character and nature, then He would have no choice but to punish such men because God, being perfect, cannot tolerate anti-God (what is against Him).  Further, He would be just in His judgment because they chose their own actions and fate.

So then, moral responsibility defends the holiness of God, righteousness of His judgments, and necessity of punishment and Hell.  Any system that removes this concept will struggle seeing God as holy, just, and loving because the burden of sin must ultimately fall on Him.  Further, any doctrine that seeks to eliminate moral responsibility must be rejected because it calls into question the character of God.  There are only two options for sin: Either God forced it, or man chose it.  If God forced it then He is unjust and a liar (because of James 1:13).  If man chose it then He is just and men deserve the repercussions of their actions.  Next time we will conclude this discussion by bringing the concepts of sovereignty and responsibility together to form one cohesive picture.