Apologetics -- History -- Early church, ca. 30-600; Celsus (Platonic philosopher), active 180; Theology -- History -- Early Church, ca. 30-600
vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master’s use, and
prepared unto every good work;”[580] for if he who purges himself
becomes a vessel unto honour, and he who allows himself to remain
unpurged[581] becomes a vessel unto dishonour, then, so far as these
words are concerned, the Creator is not at all to blame. For the Creator
makes vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour, not from the beginning
according to His foreknowledge,[582] since He does not condemn or
justify beforehand[583] according to it; but [He makes] those into
vessels of honour who purged themselves, and those into vessels of
dishonour who allowed themselves to remain unpurged: so that it results
from older causes[584] [which operated] in the formation of the vessels
unto honour and dishonour, that one was created for the former
condition, and another for the latter. But if we once admit that there
were certain older causes [at work] in the forming of a vessel unto
honour, and of one unto dishonour, what absurdity is there in going back
to the subject of the soul, and [in supposing] that a more ancient cause
for Jacob being loved and for Esau being hated existed with respect to
Jacob before his assumption of a body, and with regard to Esau before he
was conceived in the womb of Rebecca?
FROM THE LATIN.
21. Nay, that very declaration, that from the same lump a vessel is
formed both to honour and to dishonour, will not push us hard; for we
assert that the nature of all rational souls is the same, as one lump of
clay is described as being under the treatment of the potter. Seeing,
then, the nature of rational creatures is one, God, according to the
previous grounds of merit,[585] created and formed out of it, as the
potter out of the one lump, some persons to honour and others to
dishonour. Now, as regards the language of the apostle, which he utters
as if in a tone of censure, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest
against God?” he means, I think, to point out that such a censure does
not refer to any believer who lives rightly and justly, and who has
confidence in God, _i.e._ to such an one as Moses was, of whom Scripture
says that “Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice;”[586] and as
God answered Moses, so also does every saint answer God. But he who is
an unbeliever, and loses confidence in answering before God owing to the
unworthiness of his life and conversation, and who, in relation to these
matters, does not seek to learn and make progress, but to oppose and
resist, and who, to speak more plainly, is such an one as to be able to
say those words which the apostle indicates, when he says, “Why, then,
does He yet find fault? for who will resist His will?”—to such an one
may the censure of the apostle rightly be directed, “Nay but, O man, who
art thou that repliest against God?” This censure accordingly applies
not to believers and saints, but to unbelievers and wicked men.
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