I get your argument.Pick whatever word works best for you.
Your assertion is that God made man so he would sin. Like me making a car that can only drive in a circle. Am I forcing the car to drive in a circle? No? I just made it that way, but it's doing what it wants? No. A rose by any other name . . .
Much love!
Coincidentally, I just received a paper written by Earl Craig wherein he explicates Paul's argument very well. May I quote a small section of it here?
Earle explains the moral dilemma here.
How can God “blame people for their evil, for who has ever resisted His will?” If someone puts a gun in my hand and forces me to pull the trigger so that I kill another human being, certainly I am not the one who actually shoots him. The person who caused me to pull the trigger made me do it. Therefore, he is accountable and to be blamed, not me. This line of reasoning is very logical and commonsensical. In the same way, we would think that, if God puts my choices in my mind and will so that He causes me to choose them, does not the same logic apply? I am not to blame for my choices. He is—it would seem.
As I understand it, this summarizes your objection. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
Earle explains Paul's answer in the quotation below.
But Paul offers a different answer in v. 20, “On the contrary O man, who are you, the one who is defending himself against God?” Depending on how this question is translated from the Greek text, it can sound as though Paul is rebuking anyone simply for asking, “God, how can you hold me accountable for my choices if You are the one who is primarily causing them?” In other words, who has the right to object to what God is doing and how He does it, so that it is evil even to ask the question? However, another way to interpret Paul is to hear him saying that he wants us human beings to consider carefully exactly “who [we] are” as creatures of God in the midst of our “defending” ourselves “against” Him. Paul goes on to claim that each one of us is a “thing which is molded,” while God is “the molder.” He wants us to imagine what it would be like for a lump of clay on a potter’s wheel all of a sudden to speak to the potter and ask indignantly, “Why did you make me like this?” The wheel is turning with the clay in the middle, and the potter with his hands is shaping it exactly how he wants. And suddenly the clay cries out and objects to how the potter is forming it. Does this make sense, that the clay should speak and has the right to question the potter who is making it into what he wants? Obviously not. Consequently, Paul’s point is that it is completely irrational and inappropriate for a lump of clay to address its potter in this manner.
Likewise, it makes no sense that we would address the same kind of question to God, “Why did you make me like Esau, to whom You are not committed to fulfill Your promises to Abraham, instead of like Jacob, to whom You are committed to fulfill these promises?” On one level, our existential level as human beings, we naturally think that we have the right to determine completely what choices we make and exactly what kind of person we choose to be, so that no one else has the right or authority to tell us what to think, feel, or do. Nevertheless, there is another level of reality that it is at work in our existences as human beings and that is completely different. This is the level of the sovereign God, who is the uncreated and transcendent author of all the created reality. And Paul likens Him to a potter and us to a lump of clay on His potter’s wheel. And what do we naturally grant the potter who is shaping the clay on his wheel? The absolute right to mold it exactly as he desires.
Therefore, the analogy is that God has the transcendent right to make us the kind of human beings that He wants—either to be like Esau and Pharaoh, who may end up persistent rebels against God and who experience His wrath and destruction, or to be like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who end up (like Paul) believing in God and enjoying the fulfillment of His two promises.
Hopefully, this helps.
