Some fools have presumed to judge the truth of this doctrine according to their own ideas, forming various vain opinions about it.
Some of them observed that it is customary in Scripture to call those “sons of God” who are justified by divine grace. Thus, for example, it says in John 1:12: “He gave them the power to become sons of God, to those who believe in his name,” and Romans 8:16: “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are sons of God”; again, in 1 John 3:1: “See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called sons of God, and so we are.”
Nor does Scripture conceal who is begotten of God. James 1:18 says: “Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth.” Likewise, 1 John 3:9: “Everyone who is born of God does not commit sin, because his seed remains in him.”
Even more astonishing is that the name “God” is attributed to them. For God said to Moses: “See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh” (Exod 7:1). Furthermore, Psalm 82:6: “I said, ‘You are gods, all of you are sons of the Most High.’” Again, the Lord says in John 10:35: “He called them gods to whom the word of God came.”
Thus, they assumed that Jesus Christ was merely a man and began from the Virgin Mary. Through the merits of a holy life, he attained the dignity of divinity above all others. They thought he was God’s Son through the spirit of adoption, as with other men; that he was begotten by grace from him. The Scriptures call him ‘God’ on account of a certain likeness to God, not by nature, but by a certain participation in divine goodness. Thus, it also says in 2 Peter 1:4 of the saints: “That you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”
To support this position, they relied on the authority of Holy Scripture. Thus the Lord says in Matthew 28:18: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” If he had been God before time, he would not have received power in time.
Likewise, it says in Romans 1:3f. of the Son, that “he was made of the seed of David according to the flesh” and that “the Son of God was predestined in power.” But what is predestined and produced does not seem to be eternal.
Furthermore, the Apostle says in Philippians 2:8f.: “He became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has exalted him and given him the name which is above every name.” From this, it seems one could prove that he was endowed with divine dignity and exalted above all because of the merit of obedience and suffering.
Peter also says in Acts 2:36: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Apparently, then, he became God in time, but, so it seems, he was not born before all time.
Moreover, they support their view with those passages of Scripture which seem to suggest a defect in Christ, such as that he was carried in a woman’s womb, that he aged, that he hungered, that he grew weary and was subject to death, that he always made progress or confessed not to know the day of judgment, was shaken by fear of death, and the like. This must be essentially incompatible with someone who is God. Therefore, they conclude, he attained divine dignity by grace on account of merit, not because he is of divine nature.
Some early heretics, Cerinthus and Ebion, first invented this thesis. Later, Paul of Samosata revived it. Photinus then adopted it. Therefore, the proponents of this doctrine are called “Photinians.”
But to those who carefully examine the words of Holy Scripture, it is obvious that this meaning, which these people stubbornly invented, is not contained in it. Thus Solomon shows most clearly that this begetting took place before all bodily generation, when he says (Prov 8:24): “I was brought forth, when there were no depths.” Thus it follows that the Son begotten by God did not begin his existence from Mary.
This holds, although they undertook to distort these and similar testimonies by a perverse interpretation, claiming that they must be understood with regard to predestination. That is, it was determined before the creation of the world that the Son of God would be born of the Virgin Mary, but not that he was his Son before the creation of the world. However, from what follows it is evident that he existed not only in the mode of predestination, but also in reality before Mary. Thus to the above-mentioned words of Solomon (Prov 8:29f.) is added: “When he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was with him, ordering all things together.” Had he existed only as predestined, he would not have been able to act.
The same is also evident from the words of the Evangelist John. For when he prefaced: “In the beginning was the Word”—by which is understood the Son of God, as was shown (IV 3)—he added (John 1:3): “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made,” so that what was said would not be understood in terms of predestination. What was said would indeed be impossible if he had not existed before the creation of the world.
Moreover, the Son of God says in John 3:13: “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.” And again in John 6:38: “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.” So it is obvious that he existed before he descended from heaven.
Furthermore, according to the previously mentioned thesis, it would have to be the case that a man became God through the merit of his life. On the contrary, however, the Apostle shows: because he was God, he became man. He notes in Phil 2:6f.: “He, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped; but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in human form…” The aforementioned thesis therefore contradicts the apostolic statement.
Moreover, Moses possessed the grace of God more abundantly than others who received it. Of him it is said in Exod 33:11: “The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” If, therefore, Jesus Christ, as with the other saints, were called ‘Son of God’ only because of the grace of adoption, Moses could be called ‘Son of God’ for the same reason as Christ, even if Christ was endowed with richer grace. Even among the other saints, one is filled with greater grace than another; yet all are called ‘sons of God’ for the same reason. But Moses is not called ‘son’ for the same reason as Christ. Thus the Apostle distinguishes Christ from Moses as the son from the servant. He notes in Heb 3:5f.: “And Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later. But Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son.” It is therefore entirely clear that Christ is not called ‘Son of God’ because of the grace of adoption, but that the other saints are.A similar argument can be drawn from several other passages of Scripture that refer to Christ as “Son of God” in a unique way—distinct from others. This occurs, for example, when he is called “Son” in contrast to others, as in Mt 3:17, when the voice of the Father resounded at the baptism: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”; or when he is called the “Only Begotten” in John 1:14: “We have beheld his glory, glory as of the Only Begotten from the Father”; and again in John 1:18: “The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” However, when he is called “Son” together with others, he cannot be called “Only Begotten.”
Sometimes he is also referred to as the “Firstborn.” This points to a particular sonship, which the others possess as derived from him, as in Rom 8:29: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Similarly, Gal 4:4f. says: “God sent his Son … so that we might receive adoption as sons.” He is thus Son for a reason different from the others. They are called “sons” on account of a likeness to his sonship.
Moreover, certain works are ascribed in the Holy Scriptures exclusively to God, in such a way that they cannot be ascribed to anyone else, such as the sanctification of souls and the forgiveness of sins. Thus it says in Lev 20:8: “I, Yahweh, am the one who sanctifies you”; and Isa 43:25: “I, I am he who blots out everything, and I will not remember your sins anymore.” But both are ascribed to Christ in Scripture, as in Heb 2:11: “For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one”; and Heb 13:12: “Therefore Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.” Likewise, the Lord himself declared that he had the power to forgive sins. He confirmed it with a miracle, as written in Mt 9:6. The angel also foretold this of him: “He will,” he said in Mt 1:21, “save his people from their sins.” Christ, who sanctifies and forgives sins, is therefore not called “God” in the same sense as those who are called “gods,” who are sanctified and whose sins are forgiven, but in the sense that he possesses the excellence and nature of divinity.
However, those passages of Scripture to which they appeal to show that Christ is not God by nature are not decisive for proving their thesis. For we confess in Christ, the Son of God, according to the mystery of the Incarnation, two natures, one human and one divine. Therefore, both what is proper to God and what seems to indicate a defect due to his human nature are said of him, as will be explained more fully below (IV 9; 27).
For the moment, however—that is, with regard to the discussion of the divine generation—it should suffice that, according to the Scriptures, it has been shown that Christ is called “Son of God” and “God.” He is not Son of God as a mere man by the grace of adoption, but by reason of his divine nature.
Source: Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 4, Chapter 4