Apologetics -- History -- Early church, ca. 30-600; Celsus (Platonic philosopher), active 180; Theology -- History -- Early Church, ca. 30-600
20. Still the declaration of the apostle will appear to drag us to the
conclusion that we are not possessed of freedom of will, in which,
objecting against himself, he says, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He
will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto
me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but,
O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed
say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the
potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto
honour, and another unto dishonour?”[573] For it will be said: If the
potter of the same lump make some vessels to honour and others to
dishonour, and God thus form some men for salvation and others for ruin,
then salvation or ruin does not depend upon ourselves, nor are we
possessed of free-will. Now we must ask him who deals so with these
passages, whether it is possible to conceive of the apostle as
contradicting himself. I presume, however, that no one will venture to
say so. If, then, the apostle does not utter contradictions, how can he,
according to him who so understands him, reasonably find fault,
censuring the individual at Corinth who had committed fornication, or
those who had fallen away, and had not repented of the licentiousness
and impurity of which they had been guilty? And how can he bless those
whom he praises as having done well, as he does the house of Onesiphorus
in these words: “The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus; for he
oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in
Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant to
him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day.”[574] It is not
consistent for the same apostle[575] to blame the sinner as worthy of
censure, and to praise him who had done well as deserving of approval;
and again, on the other hand, to say, as if nothing depended on
ourselves, that the cause was in the Creator[576] why the one vessel was
formed to honour, and the other to dishonour. And how is this statement
correct:[577] “For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of
Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body,
according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad,”[578] since
they who have done evil have advanced to this pitch of wickedness[579]
because they were created vessels unto dishonour, while they that have
lived virtuously have done good because they were created from the
beginning for this purpose, and became vessels unto honour? And again,
how does not the statement made elsewhere conflict with the view which
these persons draw from the words which we have quoted (that it is the
fault of the Creator that one vessel is in honour and another in
dishonour), viz. “that in a great house there are not only vessels of
gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and
some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself, he shall be a
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account