the ambiguous expressions used here, such as “need,” “part,” and the like. We have explained that this is comparable to saying, “He is necessarily existent in Himself,” “He acted by Himself,” and similar formulations.

The fifth response is that if a creature may rightly be called “self-sufficient” and “one to whom others turn in need,” while possessing attributes that do not preclude applying these designations, how can it rightly be said that calling the Creator by these names is incompatible with these attributes?