Claim. The origin and goal of history are fixed (creation, fall, restoration of the ideal world) but how that goal is reached is undetermined and entrusted to human free will, especially the responsibility of providential central figures — this is called the theory of responsibility.
Elaboration. Lee articulates one of the most distinctive UT positions: a partial determinism (The Origin, Direction, and Goal of History). The endpoints are fixed by God — history begins with creation and the fall and aims at ‘the restoration of the ideal world of creation on a higher dimension.’ But the trajectory between endpoints is not predetermined: ‘whether history proceeds in a straight line or makes a detour; whether it is shortened or prolonged―depends entirely on the efforts of human beings.’
The key term is ‘human portion of responsibility’ (the standard UT/DP locus of believers-responsibility). Each step of progress ‘is successfully completed only when the human portion of responsibility — especially the portion of responsibility of providential central figures — is fulfilled in accordance with God’s providence.’ This locates moral weight on specific historical actors (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, the Messiah) whose decisions either advance or prolong providence.
The doctrine threads a needle between Calvinist determinism and Toynbeean voluntarism. Lee explicitly contrasts: classical providential views and Hegel/Marx are deterministic (humans are ‘no more than a being dragged along’); Toynbee is non-deterministic but loses confidence in the goal. UT keeps both — guaranteed goal, free process. The claim is load-bearing for the rest of the chapter: it explains why providence repeats (synchronous providence), why central figures matter (dominion by the center), and why indemnity exists (compensation for failed responsibility).
The doctrine has uncomfortable implications: if humans fail the schedule, God must wait and re-call; tragedy in history is human-caused, not divine-permitted. This is the position Hendricks operationalizes in 01-church-growth-begins-with-god. Critics from classical-theist directions typically engage on whether ‘God’s portion’ and ‘human portion’ can be coherently distinguished without making God contingent on human cooperation.
See also. law-of-responsibility-prolongs-failed-providence, gods-heart-overrides-divine-foreknowledge, unification-view-of-history-as-philosophy-of-history