Apologetics -- History -- Early church, ca. 30-600; Celsus (Platonic philosopher), active 180; Theology -- History -- Early Church, ca. 30-600
Chapter III.
And he continues: “What is the meaning of such a descent upon the part
of God?” not observing that, according to our teaching, the meaning of
the descent is pre-eminently to convert what are called in the Gospel
the lost “sheep of the house of Israel;” and secondly, to take away from
them, on account of their disobedience, what is called the “kingdom of
God,” and to give to other husbandmen than the ancient Jews, viz. to the
Christians, who will render to God the fruits of His kingdom in due
season (each action being a “fruit of the kingdom”).[484] We shall
therefore, out of a greater number, select a few remarks by way of
answer to the question of Celsus, when he says, “What is the meaning of
such a descent upon the part of God?” And Celsus here returns to himself
an answer which would have been given neither by Jews nor by us, when he
asks, “Was it in order to learn what goes on amongst men?” For not one
of us asserts that it was in order to learn what goes on amongst men
that Christ entered into this life. Immediately after, however, as if
some would reply that it _was_ “in order to learn what goes on among
men,” he makes this objection to his own statement: “Does he not know
all things?” Then, as if we were to answer that He _does_ know all
things, he raises a new question, saying, “Then he does know, but does
not make [men] better, nor is it possible for him by means of his divine
power to make [men] better.” Now all this on his part is silly
talk;[485] for God, by means of His word, which is continually passing
from generation to generation into holy souls, and constituting them
friends of God and prophets, _does_ improve those who listen to His
words; and by the coming of Christ He improves, through the doctrine of
Christianity, not those who are unwilling, but those who have chosen the
better life, and that which is pleasing to God. I do not know, moreover,
what kind of improvement Celsus wished to take place when he raised the
objection, asking, “Is it then not possible for him, by means of his
divine power, to make [men] better, unless he send some one for that
special purpose?”[486] Would he then have the improvement to take place
by God’s filling the minds of men with new ideas, removing at once the
[inherent] wickedness, and implanting virtue [in its stead]?[487]
Another person now would inquire whether this was not inconsistent or
impossible in the very nature of things; we, however, would say, “Grant
it to be so, and let it be possible.” Where, then, is our free
will?[488] and what credit is there in assenting to the truth? or how is
the rejection of what is false praiseworthy? But even if it were once
granted that such a course was not only possible, but could be
accomplished with propriety [by God], why would not one rather inquire
(asking a question like that of Celsus) why it was not possible for God,
by means of His divine power, to create men who needed no improvement,
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