ACC ~ John 10 v36

THE FATHER SANCTIFIED THE SON IN THE SAME WAY AS HE BEGAT HIM

AUGUSTINE: Perhaps someone may be saying, If the Father sanctified him, was there then a time when he was not sanctified? He sanctified in the same way as he begat him. For in the act of begetting he gave him the power to be holy, because he begat him in holiness. For if that which is sanctified was unholy before, how can we say to God the Father, “Hallowed be thy name”? [1] TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 48.9. [2]

[1] Mt 6:9.

[2] NPNF 1 7:269**.

JESUS USES ACCUSATION TO AFFIRM HIS DIVINITY

NOVATIAN: The Jews thought that what he had said was… hateful and blasphemous, for he had shown himself in these discourses to be God. Therefore they rushed at once to stoning and set to work passionately to hurl stones. He, however, strongly refuted his adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. “If,” said he, “he called them gods to whom the words of God were given, and the Scripture cannot be broken, you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am the Son of God.” With these words, he did not deny that he was God, but rather he confirmed the assertion that he was God. For because undoubtedly they are said to be gods to whom the words of God were given, much more is he God who is found to be superior to all these. And nevertheless he refuted the calumny of blasphemy in a fitting manner with lawful tact. For his desire is to be understood to be God as the Son of God, not wanting to be understood as the Father. Thus he said that he was sent and showed them that he had manifested many good works from the Father that further demonstrates that he wanted to be understood as the Son and not the Father. And in the latter portion of his defense he made mention of the Son, not the Father when he said, “You say, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Thus, as far as pertains to the guilt of blasphemy, he calls himself the Son, not the Father; but as pertaining to his divinity, by saying, “I and the Father are one,” he proved that he was the Son of God. He is God, therefore, but God in such a manner as to be the Son, not the Father. ON THE TRINITY 15. [1]

[1] ANF 5:625.

THE LAW CALLED MERE HUMANS “GODS”

HILARY OF POITIERS: He begins by exposing the absurdity, as well as the insolence, of such a charge as that of making himself God, though he was only a man. The law had conferred the title on holy people. The word of God, from which there is no appeal, had given its sanction to the public use of the name. What blasphemy, then, could there be in the assumption of the title of Son of God by him whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world?… The law gives the name of gods to those who are confessedly mortals. And so, if other people may use this name without blasphemy, there can obviously be no blasphemy in its use by the man whom the Father has sanctified. Also, note here that throughout this argument he calls himself man, for the Son of God is also Son of man. He excels above the rest who, nonetheless, are guilty of no irreverence in styling themselves gods. He excels above them in that he has been hallowed to be the Son, as the blessed Paul says, who teaches us of this sanctification. [1] … And so, the accusation of blasphemy against him in making himself God falls to the ground. For the Word of God has conferred this name on many people; and he who was sanctified and sent by the Father did no more than proclaim himself the Son of God. ON THE TRINITY 7.24. [2]

[1] See Rom 1:2-4.

[2] NPNF 2 9:128-29*.