If he says, “They agreed with us that deficiency is impossible for Him; they disputed only whether this constitutes a deficiency,” he is told:

“Either they agreed to the use of the term, or they agreed to its meanings.

“If they agreed to the statement that He, glorified be He, is free from deficiency, but said, ‘This is not a deficiency,’ then the disputed matter was not included in what they meant by the term ‘deficiency.’ Clearly, in that case, there is no consensus on the disputed meaning, but only on a term which, as understood by some of those whose agreement constitutes consensus, does not include that meaning. Such agreement is not proof concerning the meaning. At most—if evidence establishes that this is called a deficiency in the language—it shows that they did not use the term in its linguistic sense. Even assuming that their usage has no basis in the language, this would amount only to a linguistic error. How much more so when they do not concede these premises even on linguistic grounds? Such an argument is not proof concerning the disputed meanings. Even if its premises were sound, it would establish only a point about wording and would therefore fail to establish what is intended.

“If, however, they agreed to deny the meanings expressed by the term ‘deficiency,’ it is clear that they did not agree with their opponents concerning the disputed meaning. Thus, there is certainly no consensus on denying the matter in dispute, and consensus cannot be invoked as proof for denying it.”