Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4: 4.04.12 Origen - De Principiis Book 3 - Ch 1 21-End

Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4: 4.04.12 Origen - De Principiis Book 3 - Ch 1 21-End

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4: 4.04.12 Origen - De Principiis Book 3 - Ch 1 21-End

TOPIC: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4 (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 4.04.12 Origen - De Principiis Book 3 - Ch 1 21-End

Other Subjects in this Topic:

Origen (Cont.)

De Principiis. (Cont.)

Book III. (Cont.)

Chap. I. (Cont.)

₃₂₈22. But since the words of the apostle, in what he says regarding vessels of honour or dishonour, that “if a man therefore purge himself, he will be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Master’s service, and prepared unto every good work,” appear to place nothing in the power of God, but all in ourselves; while in those in which he declares that “the potter hath power over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel to honour, another to dishonour,” he seems to refer the whole to God, - it is not to be understood that those statements are contradictory, but the two meanings are to be reduced to agreement, and one signification must be drawn from both, viz., that we are not to suppose either that those things which are in our own power can be done without the help of God, or that those which are in God’s hand can be brought to completion without the intervention of our acts, and desires, and intention; because we have it not in our own power so to will or do anything, as not to know that this very faculty, by which we are able to will or to do, was bestowed on us by God, according to the distinction which we indicated above. Or again, when God forms vessels, some to honour and others to dishonour, we are to suppose that He does not regard either our wills, or our purposes, or our deserts, to be the causes of the honour or dishonour, as if they were a sort of matter from which He may form the vessel of each one of us either to honour or to dishonour; whereas the very movement of the soul itself, or the purpose of the understanding, may of itself suggest to him, who is not unaware of his heart and the thoughts of his mind, whether his vessel ought to be formed to honour or to dishonour. But let these points suffice, which we have discussed as we best could, regarding the questions connected with the freedom of the will.^{172
22. But since the apostle in one place does not pretend that the becoming of a vessel unto honour or dishonour depends upon God, but refers back the whole to ourselves, saying, “If, then, a man purge himself, he will be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work;” and elsewhere does not even pretend that it is dependent upon ourselves, but appears to attribute the whole to God, saying, “The potter hath power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another to dishonour;” and as his statements are not contradictory, we must reconcile them, and extract one complete statement from both. Neither does our own power,^{167 apart from the knowledge^{168 of God, compel us to make progress; nor does the knowledge of God (do so), unless we ourselves also contribute something to the good result; nor does our own power, apart from the knowledge of God, and the use of the power that worthily belongs to us,^{169 make a man become (a vessel) unto honour or dishonour; nor does the will of God alone^{170 form a man to honour or to dishonour, unless He hold our will to be a kind of matter that admits of variation,^{171 and that inclines to a better or worse course of conduct. And these observations are sufficient to have been made by us on the subject of free-will.

FOOTNOTES

^{159 ὁσον ἐπὶ τῆ ὑποκειμένῃ φύσει.

^{160 Secundum praecedentes meritorum causas.

^{161 ἑνὸς φυραμάτος τῶν λογικῶν ὑποστάσεων.

^{162 Diversas animarum naturas.

^{163 κατὰ φιλονεικίαν.

^{164 σώζουσι.

^{165 ἐκ προτέρων τινῶν κατορθωμάτων.

^{166 Quodammodo.

^{167 τὸ ἐφ ἡμῖν.

^{168 ἐπιστήμη: probably in the sense of πρόγνωσις.

^{169 τῆς καταχρήσεως τοῦ κατ ἀξίαν τοῦ ἐφ ἡμῖν. “Nec sine usu liberi nostri arbitrii, quod peculiare nobis et meriti nostri est” (Redepenning).

^{170 οὔτε τοῦ ἐπί τῷ Θεῷ μόνον.

^{171 ὓλην τινὰ διαφοράς.

^{172 [Elucidation II.]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}