Tertia Pars
58. Summa III, Q. 23: Adoption – Does God Adopt Sons, and Is Christ an Adopted Son?
Class of 2009-11-12
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/058-summa-iii-q-23-adoption-does-god-adopt-sons-and-is-christ/

[0:00] Name of the Father and Son of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, my God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. God, our enlightenment. Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illuminate images, and arouse us to consider more quickly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. You may recall these five questions that we're concerned with now.

[0:35] They were divided here back in the beginning of question twenty. Just look at the proemium beginning question twenty here. Then one ought to consider about those things which belong to Christ in comparison to the Father, of which some are said of Him according to the relation of Him to the Father, that He is subject to Him, that He prayed to Him, and that He ministered to Him in His priesthood.

[1:10] But some are said or are able to be said according to the relation of the Father to Him, as if the Father adopted Him, right, and the Father what, predestined Him, right? And then he enumerates the five questions then twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four. First, therefore, when I consider about the subjection of Christ to the Father. Secondly, about His prayer. Third, about His priesthood, right? Those are the ones we finished last time.

[1:43] And fourth, now about the adoption, which we'll be taking up today, and maybe the fifth one, predestination Now notice if you had just that last sentence there, he'd say, "Well, Thomas is dividing it to five, right? " But those who've been trained in the rule of two or three, right, realize that he first in the beginning of this proemium he gives a division into what, two of these, right?

[2:11] Comparison of the Son to the Father, so to speak, or the Father to the Son, and then the first of those is subdivided into three, and the second into two. So he follows the rule of two or three. So we don't want to let him get away with, you know.

[2:31] So let's look now at question twenty-three about adoption. Then we're not to consider whether adoption belongs to Christ, and about this four things are asked. First, whether it belongs to God to adopt sons, huh?

[2:56] Secondly, whether this belongs to only God the Father—that's got interesting that is put in there. Third, whether it is proper of men to be adopted into what sons of God,

[3:14] and then finally, whether Christ is able to be called an adopted son. So it's not uh fourth article you get down to Christ in particular, right? so but I think these other things are worth seeing and necessary to understand before we try to answer the question four there. So the the first one goes forward. Thus, it seems that it does not belong to God to adopt sons,

[3:46] for no one adopts except what an extraneous person in his son, according as the jurist says, that's the canon lawyers. But no person is extraneous to God, who is the creator of all. Right,

[4:11] Saint Francis even called brother brother this sister this. Therefore, it seems that it does not belong to God to adopt. It's like we're all we're already his children, right? We're already.

[4:32] Moreover, adoption seems to be brought in or introduced on account of the defect of what natural sonship. But in God there is found a natural what sonship, as is had in the first. I guess the first to the Son of God, right? And therefore, it is not belonging to God to adopt sons. He's already got a son there.

[5:02] Moreover, to this some was adopted that he might succeed in the inheritance of the one adopting him. But in the heredity of God, it doesn't seem anyone can succeed because he himself never kicks the bucket, right? Therefore, it does not belong to God to adopt.

[5:30] But against all this is what is said in Ephesians chapter one, the fifth verse: He predestined us for adoption as sons of God. But the predestination of God is not what Erased. huh? Therefore, God adopts some for himself as sons.

[5:58] Now Thomas is going to reply to this. I answer: It should be said that some man adopts someone for himself as a son, in so far as from his goodness, the goodness, I guess, of the one adopting, right? He admits him to partaking of his what? Inheritance.

[6:20] But God is of infinite what? Goodness. From which it happens that he admits creatures to a partaking of his what? Goods. And most of all, or especially, the reasonable creatures, right? Which, in so far as they are made to the image of God, are also capable of divine beatitude, divine blessedness, Which blessedness consists in the enjoyment of God, through which also God himself is blessed, right? And through himself, what?

[7:08] Rich. Rich one, huh? Interesting. In so far as he enjoys himself. Now this is called the what? Inheritance of someone that from which he himself is what? Rich, wealthy.

[7:36] And therefore, in so far as God, from his very goodness, admits men to the inheritance of beatitude, he is said to what? Adopt them. That's interesting. Thomas using the word riches here, huh?

[7:59] The word that's in the song. The one that says, "In your light we shall see light." The rich man who died is sometimes called dives, but that's kind of the the word for

[8:12] it. And therefore, in so okay. But this divine adoption has more than human. That God makes a man what? Suitable. For being adopted, through the gift of grace, right?

[8:36] Makes him idoneum, suitable, right? Ad hereditatem caelestem percipiendam which allows him to perceive or receive right? in? The celestial inheritance. But man does not make suitable the one whom he adopts, right?

[8:57] But rather, someone already what suitable he chooses by what he chooses yeah adopting. Okay. What's the old difference there between man and God in terms of love, right? Our love is is aroused by the goodness we find another son. But in God, His love is the cause of of the goodness in the one He loves.

[9:34] Now, what about man not being extraneous from God? To the first, therefore, it should be said that man, considered in his nature, is not extraneous from God as regards the natural goods that he receives.

[9:54] But he is nevertheless extraneous as regards the goods as regards the goods of what grace and glory. And according to this, he is what Doctor. So even in our natural gifts, we can be said to be God's son in some way.

[10:11] And even the the poet Homer, right, speaks of Zeus as the father of men and and gods, right. So he speaks in his being a father. right? well, if he's your father, he's adopted you in some sense, right?

[10:28] Remember St. Paul says to the Athenians, does he use that? He and poets refer to him as father. I can't remember. About there being a similarity between the two,

[10:53] there is something of the divine in you. I think he says. Okay, I can't remember. The second objection. To the second, it should be said that it belongs to man to act to supply his own what need, huh? But not God, huh? To whom it belongs to act for the communication, the and for communicating the abundance of his what of his perfection, right?

[11:22] Like Thomas here in the prayer before communion, there about his largitas, okay, to benefit him. And and therefore, just as by the act of creation, the divine goodness is communicated to all creatures, according to a certain what likeness, huh? So through the act of adoption, is communicated the likeness of natural what sonship to men, according to that of Romans eight twenty nine, whom he what for foreknew to become what conformed to the image of his what son, huh?

[12:14] That's a difference then, huh? So sometimes you know a man might not have any children, right, or have no what A son, right? So he adopts someone that he he says, what. Yeah, So there's a certain need there. because he doesn't have a natural son. Well, he needed to he needed to somebody, right? And but God doesn't have that problem, right? It's not a need, right, that he adopts us, huh?

[12:55] Now what about this dying and so on? To the third, it should be said that spiritual goods are able at the same time to be possessed by many. Not, however, what corporeal goods. So if I come in here with a apple pie, I can't give the whole apple pie to each of you. But whatever I give to one of you, the other ones will not have, right?

[13:22] But if I come in here with my knowledge of the Pythagorean theorem, I can teach the Pythagorean theorem to all of you, and each of you will walk away with. Piece of pie. And the same piece, same piece of Euclid, right?

[13:45] And therefore, because of that, no one is able to what receive or get the bodily or material inheritance, except by succeeding to the one dying.

[14:00] But the spiritual inheritance, at the same time, all integral as a whole, right, can proceed without any what harm to the father. Always what?

[14:15] Remember my brother Richard one day talking about it was experiencing class and so on. I mean, as a student, who partakes more than knowledge, the teacher of the student. Of course, he through the teacher does more because he understands it better, right? But the point is, he doesn't have less for sharing his knowledge, right? Huh? He used to have fun with the early Greeks there, you know, for whom the only kind of change is change of place, right?

[14:46] So therefore, the only way that a man could teach would be to what? Transport some of the knowledge in his head into the student's head, which case the professor would be what? More and more ignorant the longer he was teaching. He'd be less and less valuable as a teacher. He'd be less and less because he has less left to communicate to his students. But that ain't so, I don't think.

[15:11] it's a good idea Yeah, right too. But then Thomas goes on to say something. It's kind of a strange thing, huh? Although it can be said that God what dies according as he is in us by faith, that he might begin to be in us through what the vision of his own nature, species. That's kind of a short for seeing God as he is, right? As the gloss says, his sons and heirs.

[15:47] Huh? That's kind of the talents that say that, huh? Yeah. You know how we speak of someone as living on somebody because they're being remembered, right? Okay. So in a sense, by faith, God is living in us, right? So when we lose faith, when we come to see Him face to face, then that way which was living in us, He no longer is alive in us. We speak that way, right?

[16:27] We speak that way, don't we? So Thomas, can you sit down? Kind of subtle guy, this Thomas, huh? Now, does belong to just the father? Because after all, father's one who adopts, right? Or does belong to the whole Trinity? To the second one goes forward. Thus, it seems that to adopt does not belong to the whole what Trinity. You mean change the question? Title, you mean? Yeah, yeah.

[17:03] I'm gonna let him do that sort of thing. But he had it taken in reference to the father, right? So, let him do that. Put that little study hand there.

[17:19] For adoption is said in divine things to the likeness of human things, but in human things to him alone does belong to adopt who can generate sons, which in divine things belongs only to the father. Therefore, in divine things only the father is able to what adopt. So, what are you going to say about that?

[17:51] Moreover, men by adoption become brothers of Christ. I think I've heard that in Scripture, right? According to that of Romans eight twenty nine, that he himself might be the first generated, right? First born in many what brothers? Doesn't he say after resurrection there? You know, oh my brothers, right? He says to Mary Magdalene, I think it was.

[18:18] But brothers are said those who are sons of one father. Hence, the Lord says in John twenty. Oh, there's a text I'm looking for. Yeah, I ascend to my father and what your father. Thomas says sometimes you know what's a little difference there. It's the father of each of the of himself and of us in a different way. Therefore, only the Father of Christ has adopted sons.

[18:49] huh? What those feminists would think about this kind of a consideration, I don't know. Simple as that. Not among them. Moreover, Galatians chapter four it is said, God sent His what only Son, His only Son, that we might receive adoption as sons of God.

[19:18] Because we are sons of God, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, "Abba, Abba definitive, right? Therefore, it is of him to adopt, of whom it is to have what. A son and a holy what spirit, but this is only true of the person of the Father. Therefore, to adopt belongs to the only person of the Father. I'm convinced, aren't you?

[19:59] But against this, it belongs to what him to adopt us in sons, whom. Yeah, Whence it is said Romans eight fifteen, you have received the spirit of the adoption of sons, in which we cry out, Abba, Pater. But when we say to God, our Father, this pertains to the whole what Trinity, just as the other names which are said of God relatively to creatures, as is said in the first part.

[20:37] Therefore, to adopt belongs to the whole Trinity. Didn't we have an article there about his father said first of all the Father in reference to God the Son or Trinity in reference to us, right? You know, and Thomas conclude said first of all the Father to the Son, right? But there's also a sense in which it's said of the Trinity in reference to us. Um. Yeah, in the Te Deum, you know that prayer there.

[21:04] You have in the first half of the prayer, you have Father said twice, right? But the second time it says in the context of Trinity, but is Father to be understood in the beginning as the Trinity rather than God the Father is distinct from God the Son, God Holy Spirit. I think it is, but usually we take the our Father. We take it as being what Father is being, God, right?

[21:32] But we might say it's appropriate to the Father in some way, but but it seems like it's. If you go to the definition of prayer, right? They define prayer as the ascent of the mind to God, right, or asking God for suitable things, right? Doesn't say you know ascent of the mind to God the Father and asking God the Father suitable things, right? Okay. It's interesting when Christ is explaining prayer there, and he says, you know, you know, if your son asks for this, would you give him that?

[22:03] You know, he asks for an egg, you give him a serpent or something, and or a piece of bread, you give him a stone or something. Well, if you evil as you are, know how to give your own children good things. How much more your heavenly Father? But but sense of Father is that you know.

[22:19] Since God Himself is said to be our Father. In the Mass and the Eucharist, and then in the in the extraordinary form, it's actually geared toward. First person of the Trinity, our Father in the prayers. It's more ambiguous than a sort of lost, lost reference,

[22:49] but it's interesting. Otherwise, it's clearly the way the prayers are written. Well, a lot of Christ prayers can be addressed to God the Father, right? Yeah, and you praise Him, you know. So there's a little ambiguity there, I think. But if the definition of prayer is correct, that it's the ascent of the mind to God and the asking of suitable things from God, if God is in the definition of prayer, well, then it seems the prayer prayers, which is the Our Father, must be understood as being addressed to God, not to God the Father in particular.

[23:32] But I also noticed at the end of the Canon of the Mass, there before the Our Father, you know, everything is being brought to God the Father, you know, through the Son and the Holy Spirit. It's kind of interesting, you know, going back to the the beginning of all things, huh? In the beginning of the Son. One way that I think I think it was one of the popes, Innocent, or something.

[23:56] I can't remember. I read something about just explaining the beginning words, of our Father, who art in heaven, as well, since everything in creation comes forth from God, being the Trinity as we call Him Father, but, because we've been adopted by Him through Christ. We call Him our Father, especially a Father to us who are redeemed. But then, because He has a fatherhood which is unique from all eternity, we say Our Father who are in heaven, because that's a paternity that's before everything.

[24:31] That was just a way to sort of explain three ways in which you understand God as Father. The answer that this is the difference between the adopted Son of God and the natural Son of God, right? That this natural Son of God is genitus, right? Non factus son; it's in the Creed, right?

[25:06] But the adopted Son is factus made. According to that of John, chapter one, verse twelve, he gave them power to become what sons of God.

[25:22] But nevertheless, sometimes the adopted Son is said to be generated, huh? On account of a spiritual regeneration, which is gratuitous and not what natural. Got to be born again, right, of water and the Holy Spirit. Whence it is said in James chapter one, He voluntarily generated us by the word of His what, truth.

[25:54] You wouldn't say that God the Father voluntarily generated the Son, would you? Yeah. Okay, what's that? But we are voluntary. Because although to generate in divine things is private to the person of the Father, nevertheless to make any effect in creatures is common to the whole Trinity, on account of the unity of their nature, which is the same thing as their power. Because where there is one nature, it is necessary that there be there one virtue and one operation.

[26:37] Whence the Lord says, "This is a text that Thomas uses all the time."when."He's arguing against the heretics, whence the Lord says, John five, whatever things the Father does, these also the Son does. Similitude, right? So not as a tool of the Father or something else, but equally, right? As a principal thing, they're from the same power. And therefore, to adopt men into sons of God belongs to the whole what Trinity.

[27:07] He's convinced me now. And this is my deal. I was talking about Abelard earlier, you know. They're saying, "I guess in the Sic et Non, sometimes Abelard leaves a thing undissolved, right? " So like giving some of the objections and not resolving the question, and this was seen as a bad thing by the school of St. Victor, huh?

[27:33] So in that work, I thought he, I thought he was just collecting the important science. Did he actually give an answer. Oh, Abelard? Yeah. No, I mean they say that Abelard sometimes

[27:47] argues dialectically as well, but doesn't resolve the thing, right? Yeah, but as I thought, the nature that work was just collecting the opposing sides. Well, it might be somewhat, but it kind of leaves something up in the air there. You don't go back to the church fathers and try to determine what the church actually teaches, right? And then try to understand that.

[28:10] Sounds like he was an original consciousness raiser. Well the way Thomas speaks sometimes as if the church fathers were forced by the heretics to go into these things and defend them, right? But if left to themselves, they would just kind of what worship them and and admired them, you know, and and and not been so presumptuous as to try to understand them, you know. Yeah. But so Augustine says, heresy is necessary for theology to to develop, huh?

[28:59] Okay. Now the first objection was saying, well, in human affairs, only the one who generates adopts, huh? He says to the first. Therefore, it should be said that all human persons are not of one nature secundum numerum.

[29:25] So my human nature is not individually the same as your human nature, and because of that, it is not necessary as would be for there to be one operation of all, right? In one effect, but this happens in divine because they have only one nature in number.

[29:50] Okay, St. Thomas says you can't really say you know that God is the lowest species divided into the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, like man is the lowest species divided into Socrates and Plato and Aristotle, etc. Because there's really a different what man there in the case of these three, but there's not three different gods there, huh? Just one God, just one nature, number.

[30:17] And therefore, as regards this, it is not possible to what observe likeness everywhere, right? Monsignor Dionne was calling our attention I think it's in the Sophist of Plato, you know, likeness is a slippery thing. Plato says, you know, it's a dangerous thing, right? And

[30:44] that's why in in the book about dialectic by Aristotle, book of places there, the fourth tool is the tool of what likeness, right? But Aristotle calls it the consideration of likeness, skepsis, I think it is the Greek word, huh? Because you got to what see in what way two things are alike and not exaggerate the likeness, and that's in the way the way our mind makes what mistakes, right?

[31:21] I got a mind. God's got a mind. I reason, therefore, God must reason too, right? Well, there's some likeness between my mind and God's mind, but you know, if I really understand what way they are alike, what way they're not alike, huh?

[31:36] Okay, that's where Aristotle gives maybe the tool of difference before the tool of likeness, huh? I said to Monsignor Dionne one day I said, that's why he gives the tool of difference. You're probably right there. I mean, because if you don't see the difference, then you're going to what misuse maybe the likeness because you'll see more than it is.

[32:09] That's I suppose very common since the incarnation. Well, he's a man like we are, so yeah, yeah. So he doesn't know who he is and yeah,

[32:18] discovering himself, huh? Yeah, it's like our president. Rush Limbaugh's taken to calling Obama the man boy. Doesn't know what he's doing. To second it, up to be said

[32:47] that by adoption we become what brothers of Christ, as having the same Father with Him, right? Whoever, in another way, is the Father of Christ, and in another way is our what Father. When significantly, the Lord says, "A part," you know, says, "My Father," and part he says, "Your Father," right? Is it there some distinction in the way He's my Father, and the way He's your Father?

[33:28] For He is the Father of Christ by generating Him what naturally, which is private to Him, right? He's the only one who's naturally generated. But He is our Father voluntarily by making something right, which is common to Him to make, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. And therefore, Christ is not the Son of the whole Trinity, as we are.

[34:00] So when he says, "My Father, Your Father," he means, yeah, he means what he says and says what he means. So my Father is the first person of the Trinity. Your Father is the whole Trinity. Yeah, Thomas will talk about that in the commentary when it comes to that point in John. Yeah.

[34:18] I've decided that John is the greatest book ever written, so I'm going to spend the rest of my life to really get that book down. If I get to the point I understand everything in it, then I'll go on to Matthew, maybe, and see if I get everything. But there's so much in there, you know. Thomas will say, "You know, of course." There are two ways of understanding this.

[34:38] Chrysostom says this, Augustine says this. and he'll give you, you know, those two guys. No wonder he would trade the the city of Paris for Chrysostom To the third, should be said

[34:58] that adoptive sonship is a certain likeness of the eternal sonship, right? Just as all things which are done or made in time are likenesses of those things which were from eternity, for man is likened to the eternal splendour of the Father through the clarity of grace, which is attributed to the Holy Spirit. And therefore, adoption, although it is common to the whole Trinity, is appropriated nevertheless to the Father, right?

[35:40] As the author, and to the Son as the exemplar, right, and to the Holy Spirit as impressing upon us a likeness of this exemplar, right. But this is what we call what appropriation, yeah. So remember that article on appropriation, that right? we should appropriate things to Trinity, huh? Power to the Father, and wisdom to the Son, and goodness to the Holy Spirit, and so on.

[36:21] Kind of struck by that, you know, when you come back to the creed we say in Mass, like the Nicene Creed, and so on. I believe in God the Father Almighty, and I say, why is He called Almighty why aren't the others called Almighty? Well, it's an appropriation there, right? So even though that's kind of a subtle thing and should be understood properly, appropriation. It's right there in the thing we see every every Sunday, you know.

[36:45] You guys say that every day, the Nicene Creed, Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, it is important and necessary to understand appropriation, right? Thomas says that power is appropriate to the Father because, as Aristotle defined power, it's it's a beginning. He's supposed to be a principio, but also by a negative way too that the, you know, the old man gets kind of what. Weak, you know, but you want to contrast the divine man who doesn't get weak at all.

[37:23] We have sinned and grown old. Our Father is younger than we. Yeah, yeah. Just contrast God the Father with with King Lear, you know.

[37:38] Some marvelous things. Okay. Now, whether to adopt is proper to the or private to the rational creature, right? But to be adopted, rather, huh? This is the passive, right? Okay, I got it. I know my Latin is suffering. Let me see. This is the passive. The third, then, one proceeds thus. It seems that to be adopted is not private to the what rational creature, huh?

[38:20] For God is not said to be the father of the rational creature except by adoption, right? But the Father is said to be he's said to be the Father even of the irrational creature, according to that of Job chapter thirty-eight. Who is the father of the raven? Or who generated drops of dew? So, little defense here of Saint Francis, there, eh? As we are speaking there in the hymns, there.

[38:55] Okay. Therefore, to be adopted is not private to the what rational creatures. Undoubtedly, there's some distinction there to be seen between the ways of the father of the raven and of us, but you can't expect Francis to bring out those distinctions, though, have you? Yeah.

[39:24] Moreover, by adoption, we are called some of the sons of God. But to be sons of God in Scripture, properly seems to be true to the angels, according to that of Job one six. In which day, when the sons of God assist before the Lord, such a vivid scene there, sons of God.

[39:51] Good, took that idea over there, huh? He's going into his devil there. Therefore, it is not private to be what rational creatures to be adopted. I don't know what he means by that. Does it mean just the angels would be sons of God, or what?

[40:17] I guess he might think that if the angels can be called sons of God, then since they're not dead by nature, they must be adopted too, or something. I mean, the first argument was saying that there are things beyond the rational creatures, right? But now the second one here seems to be saying that the the angels were called sons of God rather than us, maybe. Well, maybe because there's questions about if it's private to us.

[40:41] Yeah. So it's the things below us, but also things above us. Yeah. We have no clear name. We'll see if he takes up the reply to that. Moreover, what is private to some nature belongs to all having that nature, right? Just as this is a great example of property in medieval logic, there, as visible belongs to all men, right? So do all men laugh, huh? But laugh.

[41:12] No. But to be adopted does not belong to every what rational nature. Therefore, to be adopted is not proper to the rational nature, because there's several senses of property, right? Porphyry gives the property there in the full sense, what belongs only always and to every. But in some sense, to be a logician is the property of man, in the sense it belongs only to man, right? But not always.

[41:40] No, no, not everyone. But against this is that adopted sons are the heirs of God, as is clear in Romans eight. But such inheritance, you know, whereby we have what the attitude of God Himself, right, belongs to only the rational creature. And therefore, it is private to the rational creature to be what adopted, huh? Or it's a property of the rational creature to be adopted, huh? What Thomas says, I answer: It should be said that the sonship of adoption is a certain likeness of the natural sonship, huh?

[42:31] Now, the son of God goes forward naturally from the Father as the understandable thought or word of Him, huh? Existing one with the Father Himself.

[42:48] So sometimes they explain those first words. In beginning was the Word. The Word was in the beginning, meaning the Father. Okay, to this Word, in three ways something can be likened. In one way, by reason of its form. Not, however, by what? Its intellectuality, huh? Just as the form of the house constituted exteriorly is likened to the mental thought of the artist, right? According to the species of the form, but not according to its understandability.

[43:34] Because the form of the house in matter is not understandable. It's got to be separate from matter before it's understandable, not. As it was understandable in the mind of the artist, huh?

[43:49] And in this way, each creature is likened to the eternal Word, huh? Since it is made through the Word, huh? John says. Secondly, the creature is likened to the Word, not only as regards the notion of form, but also as regards its what?

[44:14] Intelligibility, huh? As science, which is in the mind of the student, is likened to the thought, which is in the mind of the what? Yeah. I have to teach in college all these years, I wonder sometimes.

[44:37] And in this way, the reasonable creature, even according to his own nature, is likened to the Word of God, right? In a third way,

[44:55] the creature is likened to the eternal Word, according to the unity which it has to the Father, and this comes about through grace and charity, huh? Whence the Lord prays in the seventeenth chapter, John, that they might be one in us, as we also are one. And such a likeness perfects the notion of adoption, because to ones who are thus likened or assimilated, there is owed eternal inheritance, huh?

[45:36] Whence is manifested to be adopted belongs only to the what? Rational creature, huh? Not, however, to all, but only to the one having charity, which is poured forth in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, as is said in Romans chapter five, verse five. And therefore, in Romans eight, fifteen, the Holy Spirit is said to be the Spirit of the adoption of sons.

[46:18] So, to the first, therefore, it should be said that God the Father is said to be what? God is said to be the Father the irrational creature, not properly by adoption, but through what? Creation, according to that first partaking of what likeness. Insofar, as he assimilated to the thought whereby he's made by God. Yeah.

[46:49] To the second, it should be said that the angels are said to be the sons of God by the sonship of adoption, right? Not because to them it belongs what first,

[47:06] but because they first received the adoption of sons. He was, I mean, that second objection, bring the angels in as if they are adopted and are sons of God rather than us, right? We say, well, no, no, they they receive this this sonship first, huh? So they are adopted sons. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because ipsi primo adoptionem filiorum perceperunt, because they first received adoption of sons. This is not an act of nature,

[47:51] but they get the inheritance. He's not saying that they are sons of God more than we are, as if they are. That's I think I think it means he says non quia ipsis primo conveniat, because it belongs to them first to be sons of God in some secondary way to us, right? But the saints are as much sons of God as the angels, right? Is there a sense in which you can call an angel a rational creature as well?

[48:20] Yeah, it's just like that. You know, remember that definition of person, right? Individua substantia rationalis naturae, and and Thomas said, well, rationality is being used in a broad sense to include what? Yeah, and even the divine, which is understandable. Yeah.

[48:48] Okay. That's where you handle that, Boethius, right? In fact, he's quite a man, Boethius. I sometimes go out on him and say Boethius is the greatest mind between Augustine and Thomas, you know. But I think they they can call him Saint Victor, another Augustine. Is he better than Boethius? And Boethius, he takes over Augustine's teaching on on the Trinity and so on, you know, and assimilates it and so on.

[49:31] He says adoption is not a property falling upon nature, but falling upon grace, huh? Of which the rational nature is capable, huh? And therefore, it's not necessary that it belongs to every rational creature, but that every rational creature should be capable of adoption. right? Just like I was saying about logician, right? Okay, It, doesn't belong in fact to every man, to be a logician Some have great potential.

[50:12] Lots of potential. I say that you know, you know. I suppose the man is fighting the world, you know, with his ideas, right? And the world's telling him he's wrong, and he's still sitting upon them. You know, like poor Niels Bohr, you know, kept his paper locked in his desk, afraid to publish it for fear he'd be laughed at. You know. Niels Bohr. Niels Bohr. yeah. And some of the examples of that, you know.

[50:41] But suppose the man is really, you know, all day long he's defending his ideas and being told he's wrong. And he comes home at night time, and his wife says, "You know, dear, I think you're mistaken." Not the logical thing to say to him, you know, but I don't know if he needs that logic. His wife.

[51:11] Okay, now we're down to the fourth article here. For the Christ, according as man, is the adopted son of God, right? As Christ is God he's the natural son of the Father, right? But what about this now? To the fourth, one proceeds thus: It seems that Christ, according as he is man, is the adopted son of God. What sounds reasonable, doesn't it? For Hilary says, speaking of Christ, the dignity of power is not lost when he adopted what the humanity of flesh.

[51:59] Therefore, Christ, according as he is man, is the adopted what son. Moreover, Augustine says in the book on the predestination of saints that this that by the same grace that man is Christ, and by which grace from the beginning of faith each man is a what Christian. But other men are Christians through the grace of adoption. Therefore, also that man is Christ through what adoption, and thus it seems that he is he seems to be a adopted son, right?

[52:46] Moreover, Christ, according as he is man, is a what servant? That goes back to the Philippians, there, right? But is more worthy to be an adopted son than a servant.

[53:04] Therefore, much more is Christ, according as man, an adopted son. That's interesting, huh? Interesting argument. It's an ideological place, right? What is less apt to belong belongs than something which is more.

[53:28] But against all this, what Ambrose says in the book on the Incarnation. Ambrose is what one of the four or five great doctors of the Western Church. We do not say that the Son by nature is an adopted son,

[53:50] but we call him what to be by nature a son who is the true son. But Christ is a true and natural son of God, according to that of the first epistle of John. You might be in his true son, Jesus Christ, huh? Therefore, Christ, according as He is man, is not the what adopted son.

[54:24] Well, I think he's going to go back to the fact that there's a hypostatic union here, Why not? I answer, it should be said that sonship properly belongs to the hypostasis or the person, right? Not to the nature, right?

[54:44] So it's I who are the father or the son of my father, real Victor Berquist, and not my nature. Every man is the son of the father

[54:56] Um. Hence, in the first part, it is said that sonship is a personal what property constitutes it. But in Christ, there is not another person or another hypostasis than the uncreated one, right? To which it belongs to be a son by nature. For it has been said above that the sonship of adoption is a likeness, partaking of the what natural sonship. But that is not said participatively, which is said to be what per se.

[55:46] And therefore, Christ, who is the natural son of God, in no way can be said to be the adopted son. Nullo modo. that's pretty strong, there, Thomas. huh You've written well, Thomas. To be told by by the natural son. But according to those who place in Christ two persons or two hypostases, right or two supposita, nothing reasonably prevents the man Christ to be a what adopted son.

[56:24] It's funny how you worded that. And Christ consumes nature. I mean, grace is an ode to nature, but he has—he's the font of all grace. He doesn't have grace. Just because he's divinity, though he's the fountain of all grace, though isn't it? Because he's divine nature. He said before he said that adoption belongs to a person, not to nature.

[56:55] Right, but he has grace in his human soul. He doesn't have grace in his divine. But there's only one person. The person is the term of that nature. Even human nature is a person. Okay, but what I guess my one thinking is that I'm an adopted son by grace. The fact that God's unique grace is only coming about son. So then I think about the grace of Christ.

[57:22] Well, his nature seems his nature doesn't have grace the way my nature has grace. There is some difference there. I mean, he's saying the I think basically that that son is is the name of a person, right? Son is the name of a person, right? Okay. So since the person here is a natural son of God, then this person cannot be said to be the adopted son of God.

[57:49] Okay. It seems what you are saying is like we have grace because it is a gift that's given to us, but he has grace because it just overflows from his divine nature. Just it's hard, kind of my present. But I see your your issue is that well, his humanity received grace. Now look, let's reply to the first objection because to the first, therefore it should be said that just as sonship does not properly belong to the nature, right?

[58:29] So neither does adoption belong to nature and such. And therefore, when it's said that the humanity of the flesh is what adopted, this is the words of Hilary, right? Improprie locutio right. So Hilary was not mistaken; he just spoke improperly, incorrectly.

[58:55] Yeah. And he takes there adoption for the union of human nature to the person of the what? He took on his nature, right? He adopted his human nature. Yeah. Let's not repeat that way of speaking. Okay. Now, what about the likeness here that Augustine has?

[59:19] To the second, it should be said that that likeness of Augustine should be understood as regards what its beginning. Because just as without merits, each man has that he be a Christian, right? So that man without merits had that he was what Christ. There is, however, a difference as regards the end or limit. Because Christ, through the grace of union, is a natural son.

[59:57] But another one through the habitual grace is an adopted son. But the habitual grace in Christ does not make. Of what is what? Not a son, an adopted son, but is a certain effect of sonship in the soul of Christ, according to that of John one. We saw his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

[1:00:34] That's kind of interesting. We saw that third objection. To the third, it should be said that to be a creature, and also to be what

[1:00:45] servitude or subjection to God, not only regards the person, but also the what nature, which cannot be said about what sonship, and therefore there is not a like what he said.

[1:01:08] We can say God or Christ was subject to the Father in his what human nature, right? He wasn't an adopted son of the Father in his human nature.

[1:01:23] Yeah, pretty important idea, the idea of person, right? I was told, you know, that when Deconic talked to Pius XII there before the definition of Assumption, right? Huh? You know, his argument was that Mary would not be in heaven if her soul, her body is not joined to her soul, because the soul is not strictly speaking what the person. And so you say that, you know, Peter is in heaven, right?

[1:01:51] That's a synecdoche. The soul of Peter is in heaven, right? So you're giving the name of the person to the part, but the part is not the person. So if that was true about Mary, you know, then speaking non figuratively, Mary would not be in heaven. Pressed Pius the twelfth, I was told. But anyway, okay, we

[1:02:18] take a little break here now before we go on to the next part here.